Good morning and I hope this edition of leadership notes finds you well and engaged with the world.
I was reminded at lunch yesterday with a friend of the important model of communication that distinguishes between information and meaning. For example, our world is filled with information, so much in fact that it is often rightly called “data smog.” However, that information simply exists, inertly perhaps, until someone applies meaning for themselves to it. Your company’s annual report, with it’s financial reports, reflections from the Chair and the CEO, beautiful photographs of happy staff and the like, is information that sits on a coffee table in the vestibule. Once someone picks it up, and starts to read it, and to make sense for themselves of it, then meaning gets applied. And what’s most fascinating is that each of us will apply our own meaning to the information. Depending on my competencies, level of interest, social context , and importantly, my financial literacy. I will likely derive meaning from the Annual Report differently from someone else.
The same model can be applied to our interpersonal connections at work. Depending on my level of what I call interpersonal literacy, I will likely derive meaning differently from someone else in the same situation. In their helpful book, “Leadership and the Sexes”, Michael Gurian and Barbara Annis note how chemicals impact how different genders respond to stress. So, as a male, I will respond more aggressively or defensively as I get triggered into a ‘fight or flight’ response. A female in exactly the same situation in the office may well get triggered into ‘tend and befriend.’ Now, thinking about information and meaning, without interpersonal literacy, if I act agressively, pushing my way through a meeting for example to get my point across, some of my female colleagues may attach meaning like I’m being a jerk, or even wonder and discuss after the meeting, “what’s wrong with Alisdair, he’s become such a jerk recently.” Or if in the same stressful meeting, a female colleague wants to defend a person in the room whom my aggression may have hurt or pushed aside in some way, I may derive meaning that she is ganging up on me, “if you’re not with me, you’’re against me” kind of thinking.
However, when I have increased my interpersonal literacy, I might recognize in the stressful situation, that I have been triggered and rather than fight or flight, I might take a couple of deep breathes and ask myself, “what is the right thing to do next?” Or if I am triggered and I see a female colleague start to defend someone, I might ask myself, how has my behaviour triggered this in her? Similarly, if I am a woman and I see a man behaving aggressively, take a deep breath and recognize that this is not about me personally, or someone else personally, this is about the man being triggered. Often the best thing to do is to speak with him privately afterwards, asking about what he found so frustrating in the meeting?, what might the impact be of his behaviour on others in the room? what did he want to have happen?
Interpersonaly literacy won’t make meaning completely clear or eradicate conflict, but by increasing it as leaders, we will be able to manage our own roles in conflict that much more effectively. May each of us find some time to learn more about ourselves this week.