Face-to-face Communication

• read the narration column first
• then do the exercises

Reading list

You do not need to consult all these books. If you can find one in your local library, concentrate on that author.

• L.A. Appley, E. Marting, R. E. Finley, A. Ward (eds), Effective Communication on the Job, New York 1963
• Edward Carl Schleh, The management tactician. Executive tactics for getting results, New York McGraw-Hill 1974
• Mortimer F. Feinberg, Robert Tanofsky, John J. Tarrant, The new psychology for managing people, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall 1975
• Harold J. Leavitt, Managerial Psychology. An introduction to individuals pairs, and groups in organizations, The University of Chicago Press 1988

narration

6. 1 Is face-to-face communication still required?

Our age is the age of science and automation. Machines and engines are replacing manpower in every sphere. Computers make our calculations and electric instruments substitute for our senses and our intellectual powers of observation. In this complex of steel, wires and electricity one might imagine that there was now little need any longer for inter-human and personal communication. Not so.

It would be a mistake for us to conclude that the new era of mass communications has made the direct exchange of thought between one person and another superfluous. In fact, and this is a remarkable fact that needs to be stressed, it is precisely in the fields of secular business, secular industry and secular management that the need for face-to-face communication has been rediscovered. Undeniable scientific investigations and long-term research, such as only the secular branches of human activity can afford to pay for, have established that there is nothing that can replace such oral, human, inter-personal contact.

Big business is spending millions to foster it among its personal with the slogan: “Good communications mean doing good business!” Large industries have erected special training institutes for the purpose of training their managers and key personnel in all the aspects of this skill of communication.

From many reports that have been published on the nature of such communication, five outstanding guidelines have been selected here because of their obvious practical applicability.

First guideline: Make time to talk with the persons entrusted to your care.

In the chain of communication there are certain people in key positions that have a special function to fulfil. They are all persons who have responsibility over others, who direct others or manage them, who coordinate and give orders. We think therefore of group leaders, bosses, foremen, managers, and all persons in similar functions.

Business research began with the discovery that many persons in such key positions either did not have the time or did not make time for personal interviews with the people entrusted to them.

The Yale’s Technological Project established that in many industries the local manager and assistant manager had to decide or take action regarding 583 small or big cases a day. This left 48 seconds for each case. It should be realised that these cases concerned people who came with a question, a suggestion, a complaint, etc. Far to little time could be given to the personal angle in these matters. In fact, the same research pointed out that the average time given by managers to face-to-face talks did not exceed five minutes a day!

Of course, this is fatal for the management in the long run. Small misunderstandings and human resistances will build up in the course of time which will create enormous delays and losses to the industry concerned.

It may be argued that personal talks are not required in certain situations, as the normal way of work would provide ample substitutes. In some cases this may be true. A team leader who works closely with other members of his team, may have created such an atmosphere of cooperation and may have introduced such natural means for personal communication (for example, relaxed tea breaks) that it would hardly be necessary to introduce anything else. Such working environments, however, are exceptional. In many more instances people may work in close proximity, with common breaks, with common recreational periods and visits to the pub, without any realistic possibility for the junior members of the team to communicate with the person in charge on a personal level.

The person in charge may be of the opinion that such special face-to-face communication is superfluous. He or she may imagine to be fully aware of all the talents, the tensions, the interests, the need of support and encouragement, alive in the minds of the team. In many cases just the opposite will be true. The real problems that confront others, their real difficulties, the precise areas in which they need help, escape the person in charge.

The ‘open-door’ technique

In business there is what is known as the ‘open-door’ technique. This means that the person in charge makes it clear to all those under his/her care that they may, at all times and for any reason at all, just ‘drop in and spill their mind’.

Wonderful, you may think. But is it? It is interesting to note that research has come to the conclusion that this ‘open-door’ technique, however wonderful in theory, has in fact proved to be a failure. People with difficulties rarely make use of this facility. This is partly due to the attitude of the responsible person, who, in spite of his or her protestations, does not really make himself/herself approachable. It is also to a great extent due to the fact that the person in charge will often be too busy to receive many people, however good his or herintentions.

In other words, business has registered this method as being insufficient and as not adequately coping with the need. For the large majority of people, the person in charge may not leave it to people’s own initiative to seek contact.

Contact must be made from higher up. Contact must be created. Contact must be begun by the person in charge and guided by the person in charge.

Many difficulties arise from strained relations, or the personal emotional dispositions of individuals. The only remedy for them is to talk about it. The enormous value of a confidential interview both for the person in charge and a person entrusted to him/her cannot be overestimated in such circumstances.

Business has developed one practical rule for dealing with personal misunderstanding. The rule is as effective as it is simple: “Talk with the person concerned!” If we care to dig in our own experience, we will all find instances where we had built up inner resistances against a person or against his/her proposals until we had an opportunity to talk it over.

Regular one-to-one meetings

Talk cannot solve all problems. But in matters of human relations it has a function to fulfil that cannot be taken over by anything else. a face-to-face talk has the advantage that in it we meet the whole person. We have an opportunity of assessing immediately his or her reactions and his or her motivation for the reaction. We have the chance of rectifying wrong notions the other may have had regarding us and our ideas.

We can do more in half-an-hour’s talk than could be done by many days of written communication. The slogan ‘Talk with the person!’ should be a guiding principle in any situation that calls for a straightening out of tensions.

The lesson we should learn in this matter is the need to create opportunities for such personal talks within the structure of our work. We have to find time for it. We have to make the first contacts ourselves, inviting the individuals to come and speak to us, in the beginning on a merely informal basis. It is not difficult for anyone to find the most natural way of bringing this about.

Periodical personal interviews of this type will be welcome to all those who depend on us, if it is made clear that their only purpose is to facilitate human contact on a personal level.

And it may be wise to fix at least half-an-hour for each such interview. This is the minimum time suggested by communication experts. The attempt to see as many persons as possible within an hour is absolutely destructive of real human communication. The time thus consumed in personal contact with those in our charge may seem a loss at first. In the long run it will prove a real gain even in terms of external efficiency. Business has proved this in hard dollars.

Second guideline: Create the atmosphere for personal communication.

Personal communication needs a certain atmosphere. We cannot hope to penetrate into a person’s real mind, if we do not give him or her a chance to ‘open up’. Each person has a particular way of giving expression to what is in his or her mind or his or her emotions, and we have to allow the person full freedom to follow his or her own way in this. It will be impossible to establish real contact, if we have not first created a feeling of mutual confidence and interest.

All this seems extremely vague. Many persons in charge would readily agree to the need of creating such an atmosphere, but will object that it is the practical ‘know-how’ that they would like to acquire. The following paragraphs contain the instructions given to managers in order to create such an atmosphere. One should remember, however, that these suggestions should not be followed as magical tricks that will do the job by themselves. Everything depends on the personal disposition of the person in charge, the desire to be really open.

Relaxed setting

A personal interview will be more successful if some attention is given to the arrangement of the setting. People feel far more at home if they are allowed to talk from an easy chair, facing a person who is also sitting in a relaxed manner.

Desks are a barrier to communication, not only in a physical sense. Many managers and leaders have already discovered this from their own experience. In a corner of their office they have arranged some easy chairs, grouped round a small table, with coll drinks and biscuits lying ready. For talks of longer duration, or of a more intimate nature, they will spontaneously direct the visitor to this corner and make him sit down in an easy chair, offering a drink.

The psychological effect of this gesture is of great value. It puts the person immediately at ease. It shows him or her that the person in charge is really interested in a confidential sharing of thoughts and experiences. In brief, it helps to create an atmosphere of relaxation in which it becomes much easier to release the burden the other person may have on his or her mind.

Human contact

Psychology tells us that some time is needed to buildup a ‘contact situation’. This means that it is most unwise to start business right away, unless previous contacts have been so good that little introduction is necessary.

The famous question: “What do you want?”, a question that is often pelted at a person before he or she has had time to feel acclimatized, has the effect of unsettling many people from the start. Ancient oriental traditions of beginning a conversation should be studied here. It is not a waste of time to break the ice with some chitchatting about one thing or other. A smile, a kind look, some attention to the humorous side of things, will all be helpful.

Every person is different and one should not try to be artificial in adopting ways of acting or speaking foreign to one’s own make-up. But each one can, within the frame-work of one’s own approach, make the other feel welcome and comfortable. A little experience will make us quite expert at this.

From work to life

If the person in charge feels the need to discuss the personal problems of someone in his/her care, it may be useful to remember the psychological rule of speaking about a person’s work before one tackles the person himself or herself. This may seem of minor importance and yet it can save many a conversation from premature shipwreck.

Many people are reticent in matters that concern themselves and they feel more at ease when they are allowed to speak about themselves indirectly. The work one is doing is an excellent testing ground for a person’s happiness and problems.

Ask what he or she is doing. Ask which aspects of the work seem most important, how much time they take, how the person could be helped to do them better. In the course of reporting on the work the person will be speaking about himself/herself, about the hopes he/she fosters, the setbacks and the difficulties he foresees. Personal problems will soon come to the fore and in this way a natural opening will have been given to bring up such private concerns.

Respect

Another quality that should characterize these private interviews is the tone of respect. Even though we may be the supreme authority in a school, an office or institute, and the person confronting us may be very much our junior, a true atmosphere for communication requires a respectful way of speaking.

There are no precise rules that can be given about this. The attitude of the person in charge will be decisive in giving expression to it. From the very beginning the person contacted should be able to see from the way we deal with him or her that we esteem, respect and appreciate him or her, irrespective of specific criticism we may have.

There is nothing that will more quickly embitter and close up others than a haughty approach, a sneer, or any other sign of disrespect. The person entrusted to us may have - and will have - his/her faults [as we all have], but this should not make us lose sight of the total good he or she is doing. And, whatever our judgement about others, they always have the right to polite and respectful treatment.

Third guideline: Learn to listen, listen and listen.

It almost seems a contradiction, but research has proved it: the best communicators are those who have learned to listen.

In industry and business, those managers and production leaders are ranked highest by the employees, of whom it can be said: “He/she is a person we can talk to!” “Someone who listens!” What does it mean to listen? Let us hear what the specialists tell us.

Mental preparation

There is first of all the need for preparation. We must have made up our minds really to listen, to learn, to find out what the other person wants to say. Far too often our listening can become some formality for the sake of giving another person the chance to have his or her say. Listening means acquiring new knowledge, getting to know a person better and so giving up some of our misunderstandings.

Listening is more an attitude of mind than an activity. Some persons have almost entirely lost this disposition of true learning and listening. If we discover such tendencies in ourselves we must counteract them by special effort. Some firms run training courses in listening for this purpose.

Paying attention

Attention forms one element in the process of listening. We can already prevent distraction beforehand, by giving some thought to factors that would decrease our power of concentration.

• The place of the interview should be sufficiently quiet for both persons to hear one another easily.
• Background noises should be reduced wherever possible.
• Both persons should also be able to see one another, for listening involves looking at the one who speaks.
• It is absolutely fatal to glance at a newspaper or page through a report while the other is speaking.
• We should take steps to minimise interruptions by incoming telephone calls.

We cannot concentrate on two things at the same time, and the person who comes to meet us will feel our lack of interest as a serious block of frankness and openness.

Equally disastrous is the practice of going through correspondence during the period of interviews. Some persons in charge perhaps think it will help others to speak if they pretend not to listen by doing one of these things. They should realise that they are achieving just the opposite effect. When we speak we feel encouraged by the full attention given to our words by our partner in conversation.

Listening as an active job

Three degrees of listening have been distinguished by experts:

• saying nothing so that the other can speak;
• showing signs of understanding or approval by nodding the head and putting in an occasional ‘Ah, yes!’;
• and actively participating in the conversation by asking for further elucidations.

One simple method for this is called the ‘echo technique’. In order to encourage the other to speak out more fully, one can echo his last words. He may have said: “I enjoy the new design programme we got.” The obvious echo to this might be: “So it’s really good, you think?” The person interviewed will then gladly elaborate with examples and clarifications. This is an excellent way of showing active interest and encouraging the speaker.

It sometimes happens that we do not fully understand what the speaker is driving at or why he or she is telling us something. For this, the ‘reflection method’ is recommended.

The reflection consists in an attempt on the part of the interviewer to repeat what the speaker has said in his or her own words. The junior teacher may just have said: “I don't know how to manage in class. I always seem to lose control of the situation.” The headmaster should or could intervene at this point with a reflection : “You mean that you find it difficult to keep discipline?” The junior will then have a chance to explain whether he or she meant it in this way or not.

Sometimes the emotions of the speaker can also be isolated and identified in the same manner. A secretary in your office may say: “I can’t understand why the chairman of the board has not invited So-and-so to his farewell party!" You might well resonate this statement with the question: “I see. You are annoyed at the president for not having invited everyone?” This will naturally lead to the required specifications.

Empathy

The foundation of good listening is a good power of ‘empathy’, of re-living another’s impressions, of being able to put oneself into another person’s situation. It goes without saying that empathy and listening are also required on the part of the junior. The junior should approach person in charge with an equally open disposition and willingness to understand why the person in charge sees things as he or she does. In the concrete human situation, however, the real perils lie on the side of the person in charge. It is he or she who is most in danger of losing the ability to listen and who stands to gain or lose most from not being able to learn from what those entrusted to his charge have to tell him/her.

This is what personnel managers in industry have to say: “The foreman disposes of many sources of information to get to know the character of the personnel in his section and to evaluate them. Of all these, however, listening to the individual labourer remains the most important one.”

Exercise 1

1.1 Draw up a list of ten people who were in charge of you at some time or other.

1.2 With whom aamong them did you have regular face-to-face communication?

1.3 Analyse in each case what effects good, or not so good, communication had on your work and on your relationship with them?

1.4 Did the lack of communication upset you at times?

Fourth guideline: give full scope to motivation.

In the early years of the industrial revolution the principle of “No brains in the workshop!” was widely applied. Labourers were put to work on one or other small part of a complicated machine without being told what the part meant for the whole machine. Their particular work was not explained in the context of the whole process of production. They were forced to become mere cogs in a machine!

The mistake has long since been realised and now there is hardly any firm that does not supply all its employees with current information on all aspects of production, storing and marketing. It has been found that this has greatly improved cooperation and a feeling of satisfaction in work.

In any organization the work has to be shared between many individuals. Quite an appreciable percentage of our personnel is constrained to work in less spectacular and more demanding types of work. This is no more than natural but it is very important to remember the other principle that all members of a large body should act as an organic unit and that this entails a good amount of information.

This applies all the more to charitable organizations that make use of voluntary helpers. In any body also the feet are necessary but these feet will only be happy if they realise that it is through them that the body can walk. In other words, it is essential for each and every one of our personnel, whether paid or voluntary, to know the progress made by the whole organization and to understand how one’s particular task fits in with the work of the whole.

Such information is not always given. Many a person would feel much better and happier in the job, if the person in charge were to explain the reasons why a certain task has been entrusted to him or her and how it fits in with the total operation.

There should also be a more frequent exchange of contact between persons engaged in various types of work, let us say: manufacturers, sales personnel and those holding administrative positions. It is a great help to know how our own small contribution influences the whole, and how by our unrewarding work we may help harvest rich results.

Again the immediate person in charge is in a key position here. During personal interviews he should seek to supply each person with such information. as well as provide a better insight into the total picture and the ultimate reason for a particular approach.

In this context it may be useful to revise the practice of hiring and firing people with a mere stroke of the pen. Some explanation should be given as to the importance of the job entrusted, the objectives envisaged, the reasons why the job should be done in one way and not in another, and the function of this particular job in the total project to be undertaken.

For the same reasons far more recognition should be given to the work done by each member of the organization. Astonishing as it may seem, persons may work with others in the same building or office for many years without having a clear picture of the other persons’ jobs, their importance and their implications. The result is a general lack of cooperation and a failure to perceive the real issues at stake. In some communities of Sisters it has been found helpful to convert the traditional 'chapters of fraternal correction" into common meetings 'to consider one another's difficul-ties.' In other communities those attending special seminars or conferences are asked to give a brief report to the whole community, at times during lunch or supper.

In all these endeavours the immediate person in charge should give guidance and encouragement.

Exercise 2

Test yourself to see whether you are skilled in face-to-face communication.
Scale to judge yourself. Put after each question "Yes" "No", or "At times".

1. Do you have fixed periodical interviews with the people in your charge ?
2. Do you give ample time to those who come to speak with you?
3. Do you spend a few minutes in putting others at ease before embarking on business?
4. Do you offer them an easy chair?
5. Do you normally speak about a person’s job before discussing the person himself /herself?
6. Do you allow the other person to speak at length ?
7. Do you give your full and un-divided attention to what the other says?
8. Do you find you learn much from such personal conversa tions?
9. Do you take the trouble to explain to those in your charge why certain decisions have been taken ?
10. Do you have the reputation of taking prompt action on what emerged from these talks?

Give yourself two marks for every "Yes", one mark for every "At times" and no mark for every "No", and add up the total.
Evaluation:
16-20: excellent
11-15: quite good
below 11: you need improvement!

Fifth Guideline: Be firm in dealing with grievances and defects.

The real test of good communication lies in our success in smoothing out tensions and improving what needs to be corrected.

In every organization there are some difficult persons who are a cause of anxiety for the person in charge. The difficulty may lie in their character, in historical circumstances or in the type of job in which they are involved. It is no good avoiding speaking with such persons simply because they will present difficulties. A leader who feels his/her responsibility will know that precisely in this case there will a special need for keeping open good lines of communication.

Personal resentment, irrational prejudice or fear, should not obstruct the executive of his/her task of providing real guidance. In some extreme cases where all attempts at better communication have failed, the person in charge is forced to maintain a policy of ‘non-confrontation’. Leaders should not take refuge in such a policy, however, unless all possible avenues for coming to a better understanding have been tried.

Dealing with complaints

It is an art to be able to pinpoint the precise source of trouble when those in our charge present complaints and grievances. Psychologists advise us to distrust the first negative impression created by such complaints. It may be that the statement made, looks outrageous to us. Seen from the point of view of the other person, however, there may be a solid ground for complaining.

Frequently a person cannot or does not want to reveal the deeper cause of anxiety. A police constable may complain about the food served in the canteen, saying there is nothing on offer that agrees with him. Further investigation may uncover friction with the chief inspector who is somewhat of a tyrant. It would be useless to lecture the constable on the value of various diets, or to reassure him by sending him to the doctor. The real source of trouble is to be found in his relations with the chief inspector and it is there that the solution will lie.

Complaints should, therefore, be taken very seriously by the superior. They should be thoroughly investigated and promptly dealt with. Neglect or delay will only store more serious trouble for the future.

What about a person’s defects?

How should the person in charge speak about these to those entrusted to him/her? Let us assume that the person in charge has taken the pains to find out whether such defects are really there. Let us also assume that they really need to be got rid of because they hamper the work or cause the person involved some measure of harm.

The person in charge should then quite frankly and deliberately criticise these defects. It will be harmful to glide over them, and this not only because of our duty to correct but because of the harm done to efficiency of management and guidance. Both the leader and the person in his/her charge, will feel a measure of relief once the matter has been discussed openly. The person in charge will have the opportunity to put the criticism in its true perspective, without exaggeration or distortion, and the junior will have his chance to explain himself/herself and accept the correction in the right spirit.

Hidden censure?

Some people in charge do not have the courage to say what they find lacking in the other person, or they employ the so-called ‘sandwhich-technique’, in which an unpleasant remark has been carefully wrapped in a bundle of appreciation and praise.

The sandwhich technique may fail in many ways. The criticism may not be noticed sufficiently by the person concerned, or it may taste somewhat bitter after the words of praise that have been spoken. An intelligent person will recognize the technique used and may resent it as dishonest.

Rather than relying on such tricks one should speak out boldly, always within the proper dimensions and in the spirit of respect. Even if the immediate reaction of the person criticised may not be pleasant, the frankness of the procedure will not fail to produce a lasting impression and will lay the foundation for a better personal relationship in the future.

Solving

Research

Path

Strategy

Image

Face to Face

Consulting