A633.5.3.RB_RuggerioSteven

Tell Them and Turn Them Loose...

The unlimited and unquestionable authority leaders and power-hungry rulers was significantly (and historically) challenged in 1215 when King John of England was obliged to sign the Magna Carta.  This document forced him to accept that his authority was not absolute.  It was a turning point in the history of leadership—and a turning point in the history of followership (Kellerman, 2012, p. 8).  By limiting the king’s power, the subjects were emboldened with authority and rights.

Since that time, many events have unfolded that continued to empower followers and citizens alike.  From Martin Luther King, Jr. to women’s rights all the way to today’s push for same-sex privileges; followers have been challenging leaders for change.  All of these events highlight the power of people.  Whether it is equal rights or basic human freedoms, the truth remains:  Progress rises from the masses.  Leaders must learn to let go and followers must find the courage to take the initiative. 

Leadership experts Jim Kouzes & Barry Posner (2007) said, "Your task as a leader is to help other people reach mutual goals, not your goals, and to get there with a sense that we did it together.  As the leader, your job is to make sure everyone sees themselves as a part of the larger mission, and your language needs to reflect that sense of being part of the team” (p. 245).  I’ve taken those words to heart and as a result, every other Saturday, I facilitate a group of twenty to thirty men who gather to discuss the challenges men face every day.  Topics include integrity, character, marriage, finances, anger, and love.  The group consists of leaders from NASA, active-duty military, education, and IT.  Last Saturday, in an attempt to demonstrate the power of individual decisions, teamwork, and perspectives, I conducted the “Who Needs Leaders” experiment with 24 men.

 

What did this exercise mean to you and how did it impact your understanding of chaos theory.

From the beginning of the experiment, I realized three immediate lessons.  First, the directions had to be clear and specific.  Secondly, the less I told them the better they responded.  And lastly, people want to succeed more than my desire to see them succeed.  Looking at each of these lessons in detail helped me understand chaos theory, its implications on leadership, and how “leaders strengthen others when they make it possible for constituents to exercise choices and discretion” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p, 270). 

First, in the early stages of explaining my desires, I realized that the directions had to be clear and specific.  As stated in the instructions, I watched each person’s nonverbal behavior and knew that above everything else, I needed to be clear.  Already upsetting the normal routine of our bimonthly meeting, the men were not going to respond favorable to a misdirected and confusing assignment.  By clearly articulating the instructions, and after answering a few minor questions, the men were ready to move.  While this morning would be different than years past, they were motivated to get underway once the directions were finished.  

Another insight gained through the experiment was that I needed to keep my instructions short.  It was immediately clear that the men were not interested in listening to a lecture.  If there was an assignment—in this case, an experiment—they wanted to “get busy” and complete their task.  Going on-and-on about my class assignment and my school schedule was not only boring to them, but was frustrating them as they stood poised and ready to begin.

Lastly, and most importantly, I realized that the men—feeling competitive and empowered—wanted to figure out the task.  They were more interested in ensuring their individual choices were quick, accurate, and allowed for ease of maneuverability.  Sliding, dodging, laughing, and a few mumbles of frustration as their designated man moved, caused them to flow almost in concert to an overarching goal.  Though each man focused only on himself and two others, it seemed from my elevated vantage point (standing on a stage) that there was a systematic synchronicity happening among the men.

With just under three minutes of elapsed time, they all settled into their positions and agreed equilibrium had been met.  Taking their word for it, we sat back down and I began to explain a few things that this exercise demonstrated to us as men.  First, it was a visual representation of the teamwork they possess.  Each man kept eyes on two other men while they moved in-and-between one other. I challenged them with this insight in the area of accountability.  I used it as an example to keep an eye out for one another while maintaining a good proximity for relationship.

I also told them that this experiment demonstrated that they have the ability within them to figure out difficult problems without being provided detailed information.  It gave each man an extra boost of confidence and increased awareness.

Include the implications that this has on strategy.

Whether it’s hockey or health care, education or financial services, the public or private sector, for a team of people to have a positive experience together, they must have shared goals that provide specific reason for being together (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 233).  Historically, strategy development was seen as an ability of C-suite personnel while lower level employees merely executed.  This experiment and further readings within Obolensky’s (2010) Complex Adaptaive Leadership demonstrates that the ability to construct strategy lies within each person.  Rather than developing strategy in a tight-fisted environment, senior leaders should learn to develop strategy form the bottom-up.

When leaders allow the workers to build the strategy along with them, implementation is a smoother process as those who helped develop the path forward already have buy-in and understanding.  By providing a few simple rules, some boundaries, ensuring the purpose is clear, and providing feedback, leaders can create an integrated strategy that encompasses every level of performance.

Steve

References: 

Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York, N: HarperCollins Publishers.

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (2007). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing.

A633.2.3.RB_RuggerioSteven

The Butterfly Marriage

Change or Die.  The title itself is enough to cause a bookstore browser to stop in their tracks.  For someone fascinated with the process of personal transformation, it called to me among a thousand other titles.  With a subtitle that asks, “Could you change when change matters most?” the intrigue was irresistible.  Alan Deutschman (2007) said, “Change doesn’t have to be something that happens to you.  You can make it happen—actively, intentionally, and deliberately—if you develop an understanding of how change works” (p. 121). 

As a marriage counselor, I am saddened when I encounter insufferable anger and pain between two people who once promised to “love each other until death do they part.”  And, while the unhappy couple believes their current predicament is a result of one or two annoyances, it’s usually the result of an accumulation of a thousand little choices.  And, getting back to the place of peace often requires a journey of a similar path.  

Weddings are transcendent.  The bride is beautiful and the groom is nervous.  Families come together and celebrate the beginning of two people becoming one.  While the details of planning and pulling off such an event are complicated, the merging of two lives is chaotic.  The groom enters the marriage with pride, sexual expectations, family struggles, a history of mistakes, and an unchecked ego.  The bride meets him at the altar with bags of insecurity, unrealistic romantic expectations, family dysfunction, and a past she wants to forget.  John Eldridge calls marriage a “divine conspiracy.”

Before the honeymoon ends, husbands and wives quickly realize that their wedding day will prove to be the easiest day of their marriage.  Nick Obolensky (2010) highlighted Ian Stewart’s definition of chaos theory as, “an apparently complicated, apparently patternless behavior that actually has a simple deterministic explanation” (p. 63). 

She can’t understand why he doesn’t want to talk anymore and he is upset that their intimate times have become less and less.  Before long, arguments increase, contempt creeps in, and the wedding day that was filled with promise and hope has all been forgotten.  And now, chaos ensues.  Days become filled with frustration and regular doses of angry looks and hopeless sighs.  Happiness and hope have vanished and love seems all but lost.

As mentioned earlier, when couples request marital counseling, they often believe if their spouse would stop doing one thing, they would regain their happiness.  But, it is never one thing and it is never one person.  Rather, there are hundreds of little decisions and choices that both spouses have made that have caused their marriage to arrive at the brink of dissolution.  And, getting back to the place they hoped for when they said, “I do”, while difficult, is possible if both husband and wife make a few small choices.  These choices highlight the butterfly effect.

Obolensky (2010) said, “Within complex organizations, small changes can yield large results” (p. 66).  Princeton.edu defined the butterfly effect as, “a metaphor that encapsulates the concept of sensitive dependence on initial conditions.  Small changes at one place in a complex system can have large effects elsewhere." 

Like complex organizations, marriages have many layers from financial budgets and job descriptions to vision casting and culture wars.  When marriages find themselves in a downward spiral, there are two small decisions that spouses can make that will have a large effect.  These choices are tone and time.

The expression “familiarity breeds contempt” is used quite often in marriage.  However, the problem is not with familiarity but forgetfulness.  We forget our vows.  We forget marriage takes work.  And, worst of all, we forget that our spouse is a person with value and purpose.  Mel Schwartz (2010) from Psychology Today said, “Disrespect, dishonoring, and negative energy all too often become familiar territory in relationship.”  He continues, “The difficulties that marriages endure are caused by a turning away from each other.  When we do so, we begin to take each other for granted."  One of the first places this shows up is in the tone of our voice.

Snide comments, condescending tones, and sarcastic remarks are verbal ways spouses use to devalue their partner.  In an attempt to feel superior and gain an edge in marriage, spouses speak to one another in ways that communicate disrespect and dishonor.  These hidden messages convey a lack of love and slowly create distance and division.  To begin changing the atmosphere in a home, spouses should begin to change their tone.  By using a softer, gentler, more understanding tone of voice, spouses will be more apt to listen and be drawn into a conversation rather than preparing their rebuttal.

McKay, Davis, & Fanning (2009) described fighting between intimates as “an inevitable, natural, and potentially beneficial process for mutual problem solving” (p. 150).  However, they also identified fair-fighting strategies.  Sarcasm and patronizing tones create communication barriers and lead to further problems later.  Changing your tone and speaking with respect begins to rebuild damaged emotions while immediately creating an atmosphere conducive to positive communication.

The second small decision that spouses can make that have a large effect on their marriage is time.  The most precious resource at our disposal is our time and how we spend it communicates what we value and consider a priority.  Wearing a wedding ring and sharing a mortgage does not make a marriage.  Marriages, like organizations, decline from neglect.  To turn things around, spouses should begin to invest small amounts of time focusing solely on their relationship.  Friday date nights, conversations over coffee, and attending marriage seminars are all small ways to communicate care and concern for the marriage.  Too often, spouses believe they have to rearrange their whole life and give up hobbies to repair a marriage.  The road looks too daunting so they avoid it altogether.  However, we have seen that small investments of time now pay large dividends later. 

Simply changing one’s tone when speaking to their spouse and setting some time aside to talk can help a husband and wife begin to see their relationship with a new perspective.  When a spouse turns toward their marriage instead of away, mutual respect, honor, unity, and empathy being to emerge. 

Let me add a note of caution: These two choices are not a panacea for all marriage problems as many spouses are suffering from great betrayals and significant emotional struggles.  In the same way, some organizations need complete makeovers whereas others need to make small changes. 

The goal is to start somewhere.  The butterfly effect has proven that small strategies and decisions can elicit large dividends later.  If you want to recapture those earlier dreams and desires from your wedding day, then make some time for your spouse and speak to them in ways that draw them to you rather than push them away.

Steve

References:

Deutschman, A. (2007). Change or die. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

McKay, M., Davis, M., & Fanning, P. (2009). Messages. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing.

Schwartz, M. (2010). Does Familiarity Breed Contempt? Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shift-mind/201010/does-familiarity-breed-contempt

A520.6.5.RB_RuggerioSteven

Teams: The Secret to Success

“It takes every kinda people, to make what life’s about.  Every kinda people,

to make the world go ‘round.” – Robert Palmer, 1978.

From adolescence, we’re wired to seek-out people with similar interest and develop friendships.  School, sports, and our local neighborhood acts as a resource pool from which to choose our friends.  Negative responses to those who are different often warranted parental correction to those who didn’t share our affections.  That all change dramatically when I entered the Air Force and was thrust into an eclectic mix of people from all walks of life.  Avoiding people with different backgrounds was no longer an option.  Parents, teachers, and coaches tried regularly taught the importance of teamwork.  While they laid a foundation, it was the leaders and supervisors within the United States Air Force that developed and matured my leadership potential.  They demanded teamwork, acceptance, and unity.  Anything less would not be accepted.

The Air Force builds teams and makes leaders.  However, the requirement is a two-way street.  The airman must willingly follow and enthusiastically embrace the opportunities and training offered by the military.  It does not take long before airmen realize they cannot succeed on their own.  To be a leader and to achieve aspiring goals, one must understand and develop high performing teams.  Kouzes & Posner (2007) said, “Leadership is not a solo act, it’s a team effort.”  Moreover, “the winning strategies will be based on the “we not I” philosophy where collaboration is a social imperative—without it you can’t get extraordinary things done in organizations” (p. 224).  

Teams are built upon two overarching imperatives: tasks and relationships.  One without the other will lead to task accomplishment and destructive relationships or task failure but harmonious relationships.  For a win-win situation, both task and relationships must be considered.  Whetten & Cameron (2011) identify the dualism as task-facilitating roles and relationship-building roles.  Task-facilitating roles are those that help the team accomplish its outcome or objectives.  Relationship-building roles are those that emphasize the interpersonal aspects of the team (p. 514).

Whetten & Cameron (2011) identify ten primary task-facilitating roles and seven relationship building roles.  First, the ten task-facilitating roles:

Direction giving – identifying ways to proceed and clarifying goals and objectives

Information seeking – asking questions and analyzing knowledge gaps, requesting opinions and beliefs.

Information giving – providing data, offering facts and judgments, and highlighting conclusions

Elaborating – building on the ideas expressed by others

Urging – imploring team members to stay on tasks.

Monitoring – checking on progress, developing measures of success and maintaining accountability

Process analyzing – analyzing processes to improve efficiency

Reality testing – exploring whether ideas presented are practical or workable

Enforcing – helping to reinforce team rules, reinforcing standards, and maintaining agreed-upon procedures

Summarizing – combining ideas and summing up points made in the team; helping members understand the conclusions that have been reached.

Without having at least one team member displaying task-facilitating behaviors, teams tend to take longer to achieve their objectives and have difficulty staying focused (p. 514).  Everyone has experienced a team member solely focused on the task while completely disregarding other’s opinions or feelings.  Sure, things get done, but it begs the question, “Was there a better way?”  The task-facilitator roles are especially important when progress toward goal accomplishment is slow; when the team is distracted; when time pressure exist; when the assignment is complex; and when no one else is helping the team move toward task accomplishment (p. 514).

When discussing the tension between task and process for participants in meetings, Whetten & Cameron (2011) said, “Task-oriented participants are ‘all business.”  They have little tolerance for joking or for discussions of feelings and friendships. The task is accomplished efficiently, but satisfaction may be low” (p. 653).  They continued, “Process-oriented participants emphasize spirit de corps and participation. They are sensitive to participants’ feelings and satisfaction.”  If managers hope to lead effectively, they must also focus on building relationship along with achieving organizational goals.  Formerly considered as a soft skill for the HR department, social interaction has been highlighted as instrumental to goal accomplishment. The tension between task and relationship can be like one is walking a tightrope high above Niagara Falls; but to settle for anything less is as safe as going over the falls in a barrel.  Therefore, leaders must manage and leave room for the following relationship-building roles:

Supporting – praising the ideas of others, showing friendliness, and pointing out others contributions.

Harmonizing – mediating differences between others and finding common ground.

Tension relieving – using humor to reduce tension

Confronting – challenging unproductive or disruptive behavior

Energizing – motivating others toward greater effort; exuding enthusiasm

Developing – assisting others to learn, grow, and achieve. Coaching members of the team

Consensus building – helping build solidarity and encouraging agreement

Empathizing – reflecting group’s feelings and expressing empathy and support for team members.

Without both task-facilitating and relationship-building roles, teams struggle to perform effectively. They key is to have a balance between task-oriented roles and relationship-building roles displayed in the team (Whetten & Cameron, p. 515).  Understanding and applying these task and relationship truths empowers leaders with insightful perspectives to build a cohesive team.  It begs the question, “What kind of team leader and team member am I?”

Consider how you generally relate as a team-member.

Upon reviewing the two types of team members, I certainly find myself more focused on relationships than the task.  Oftentimes the task is unmoving.  It is a fixed point; an objective.  The goal rests on the horizon while managers create teams to reach and succeed it.  Conversely, the complexities of a team are fluid.  Relationships, emotions, investments, and collaboration rise and fall based on the level of trust within the team.  In The Speed of Trust, Stephen M.R. Covey said, “When trust is high, speed is high and costs go down.  When trust is low, speed is down and costs go up.” 

I believe in investing before you begin expecting.  In other words, invest into your people, gain their trust, and create a partnership toward a common goal.  As this is done, team members combine resources and invest energies into accomplishing the task.  When managers focus specifically on the task and little on the team relationships, individuals feel used and underappreciated.

Do you actively engage your team to accomplish its mission?

As a leader, I believe I should never ask someone to do that I have never done or am unwilling to do.  I’m a firm believer in the value and effect of personal contact and camaraderie.  In the military, there were many senior leaders who dictated orders from an office and rarely ventured into the work areas of their troops.  Lack of connection and communication led team members to work purely because of their obligation and rules. 

The supervisors who engaged their team were better able to motivate and inspire their team.  As a team leader, I consistently engage with my team to ensure they understand the mission, have all the necessary resources, and receive feedback and direction along the way.

Do you work to improve the team cohesion and collaboration?

In True North, Bill George (2007) highlights the leadership of Dick Kovacevich from Wells Fargo who said, “On the athletic field I learned that a group of people can perform so much better as a team than as the sum of their individual talents” (p. 9).  In light of the two different types of leadership and the many roles people take within team, Kovacevich also said, “Diversity of skills is an important element of any effective team.  I am amazed at leaders who surround themselves with people just like themselves” (p. 9).

Being strong in the relationships-building characteristic of team dynamics, I regularly utilize the following roles to improve team cohesion and collaboration: harmonizing, tension relieving, and energizing.  By demonstrating appropriate care and concern, team members are more apt to work together, deal effectively with conflict, and stay focused on the goal at hand (rather than be distracted by unnecessary “drama” in the workplace).

Lastly, there is more for managers to contend with than ensuring an appropriate balance of task and relationship focus.  In fact, members may actually take on unproductive roles that directly inhibit the team or its members from achieving what they could have achieved.  The following roles—referred to as “blocking” roles can destroy both morale and cohesion (p. 515).  Effective team members recognize when blocking roles are displayed, confront and isolate dysfunctional members, and provide feedback to those who are inhibiting effective team performance.  They are:

Dominating – excessive talking or cutting others off

Overanalyzing – examining every detail

Stalling – not allowing the group to reach a decision

Remaining passive – staying on the fringe and avoiding engaging in the team. Expecting others to do the team’s work

Overgeneralizing – blowing something out of proportion and drawing unfounded conclusion

Faultfinding – unwilling to see the merits of others’ ideas

Premature decision making – making decisions before goals are stated and information is shared or problems are defined

Presenting opinions as facts – Failing to examine the legitimacy of proposals

Rejecting – rejecting ideas based on the person who stated them rather than on their merits

Pulling rank – using status, expertise, or title to get ideas accepted

Resisting – blocking attempts to change, to improve, or make progress

Deflecting – not staying focused on the topic

Finally, George (2007) said, “Leaders are highly complex human beings, people who have distinctive qualities that cannot be sufficiently described by lists of traits or characteristics” (p. xxvii).  With nearly 30 different roles identified (task, relationship, and blocking), it is easy to see that teams are collective groups of complex individuals.  It requires a strong leader to manage and direct the various personalities within a team’s make-up.  Highlighting these elements can equip leaders with the knowledge necessary to ensure team and relationship success.

Steve

References:

George, B. (2007). True north. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Whetten, D.A., Cameron, K.S. (2011). Developing management skills. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

A520.3.5.RB_RuggerioSteven

Supportive Communication: Eight Keys to a Happy Marriage

Frank Dance, an American communication professor, said, “Human communication permeates the human condition.  Human communication surrounds us and is an in-built aspect of everything human beings are and do.  That makes any effort to explain, predict, or to some extent control human communication a pretty big order.  How does one get a handle on the totality of human communication?”  Improving communication across society seems akin to the common cold.  Everyone is aware of its negative effects, no one is immune, and rather than try to cure it, we simply treat it.  Two years ago, I watched the HBO series John Adams.  I was struck by the verbal excellence of eighteenth century leaders.  Yesterday I finished watching the PBS series Downton Abby (late 1800s through mid 1900s).  Again, the dialogue and dialect is an auditory adventure.  How have we drifted so far from excellent speech? 

Whether you want to blame it on technology, lackluster education, or laziness, communication is not what it once was.  Rather than respect the communication process, many live with a steady state of misunderstandings and lack of connection.  I’m reminded of Karl Bonhoeffer, the father of the German theologian and Christian martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  Eric Metaxas (2010) wrote, “Karl Bonhoeffer taught his children to speak only when they had something to say.  He did not tolerate sloppiness of expression any more than he tolerated self-pity or selfishness or boastful pride” (p. 15).  He believed our words defined our character.  Metaxas continues, “The Bonhoeffer children were taught to be in firm control of their emotions.  Emotionalism, like sloppy communication, was thought to be self-indulgent.”

Though we drifted, there are many who continue to promote the value and importance of strengthening and improving our communication process.  Whetten & Cameron (2011) said, “Human relationships are becoming more important, not less, as the information age unfolds and technologies encroach even more on our daily lives” (p. 4).  If our leaders hope to overcome the technological challenges and unite people, then they must pave the communication pathway.  It will not be an easy task.  Whether at work, home, or church, improving communication is an investment in relationships and leadership that we must possess.  The eight supportive communication techniques identified by Whetten & Cameron are key instrumental factors that leaders must embrace if they ever hope to change the world for the better.

As a pastoral intern, much of my time is spent coaching and counseling men and married couples.  Everyone has personal challenges that affect their life to some degree.  My role as a pastor is to help men and women find their rightful place and purpose in life.  Some would call my activities “life coaching” or “spiritual leadership.”  My goal is to guide people to a life characterized by self-improvement and service; to arrive at the end of life with no regrets.  Incorporating the eight attributes of supportive communication when ministering to people should facilitate closer relationships, build trust and credibility, and increase my abilities as a leader.  Supportive communication seeks to preserve or enhance a positive relationship between you and another person while still addressing a problem, giving negative feedback, or tackling a difficult issue (Whetten & Cameron, 2011).  As a marriage counselor, my wife and I deal with very emotional issues.  I will describe the eight attributes and expected outcomes as applied to marriage counseling involving poor communication between spouses.

Whetten & Cameron (2011) said, “Ineffective communication may lead individuals to dislike each other, be offended by each other, refuse to listen to each other, and disagree with each other, as well as cause a host of other interpersonal problems” (p. 243).  Communication is frequently touted as the number one struggle in marriage.  Improving one’s ability to communicate will immediately improve one’s relationship.  Applying these attributes would reduce outlandish lawyer fees, counseling bills, and maybe even decrease the divorce rate.  Here’s what I expect from incorporating supportive communication tools:

1.) Congruent, Not Incongruent – a focus on honest messages where verbal statements match thoughts and feelings.  Common frustrations from both husbands and wives are those surrounding congruent communication.  He asked, “What’s wrong?” and she replied, “Nothing!”  With a rigid stance and short answer, her incongruence pushes him away rather than pulling him in.  She asks, “Please tell me what’s bothering you.” and he grunts or nods and walks away.  She is left alone and distant, longing for a vulnerable connection.  

Whetten & Cameron (2011) said, “Accurate interpretation and effective message delivery depends on relationships of trust and shared context” (p. 239).  Moreover, to increase trust, “genuine, honest statements are always better than artificial or dishonest statements.  Genuineness and authenticity is at the heart of positive relationships” (p. 247).  Congruent communication will create a foundation of trust, vulnerability, and respect.  In short, say what you mean and mean what you say.  But, present it with humility and gentleness.

2.) Descriptive, Not Evaluative – a focus on describing an objective occurrence, describing your reaction to it, and not offering a suggested alternative.  “He will never change his selfish ways!” “She has been nasty and controlling for thirty years, and I can’t imagine her being different.”  These and many other similar comments are common in marital counseling.  Most people are skeptical about true character change because, sadly, they rarely see people around them changing” (Yerkovich, 2006).  Spouses communicate in an evaluative manner much more than in a descriptive manner.  They label each other with negative terms.  Left with no other recourse but to return fire, spouses get caught in a downward spiral of “Yes, you are,” and “No, I’m not.”

   

Whetten & Cameron (2011) said, “When people experience positive interactions—even if they are just temporary encounters—they are elevated, revitalized, and enlivened” (p. 238).  If marriages hope to grow and develop, both husband and wife must learn to use descriptive rather than evaluative words.  For starters, address the behavior not the motive.  Deal with your feelings about how you felt and avoid labeling your spouse’s motivation or character.  This takes the focus off your spouse’s identity and places it where it belongs—on the behavior.

3.) Problem-Oriented, Not Person-Oriented – a focus on problems and issues that can be changed rather than people and their characteristics.  Whetten & Cameron (2011) clearly stated, “One problem with person-oriented communication is that, while most people can change their behavior, few can change their basic personalities” (p. 250).  Marriage should be the safest place on earth.  It should be a refuge from what can be at times a cruel and unforgiving world.  Tim Keller (2011) said, “Your spouse’s opinion of you can be a terrible weapon” (p. 161).  While we encourage truth and honesty in communicating concerns and unhappiness, it is each spouse’s responsibility to address the problem and not label the person. 

4.) Validating, Not Invalidating – a focus on statements that communicate respect, flexibility, collaboration, and areas of agreement.  Milan & Kay Yerkovich (2006) said, “The ability to console and bring relief to your spouse when he or she is upset and agitated is foundational to a close, emotional bond” (p. 23).  Communication should be respectful and egalitarian.  Spouses are equal in the marriage; identifying flexibility and mutual benefit will facilitate meaningful and rich connections.  

Whetten & Cameron (2011) said, “Two-way communication is an implied result of respectfulness and flexibility.  Individuals feel validated when they are asked questions and given air-time to express their opinions” (p. 253).  By practicing supportive communication, spouses validate each other as an integral part of the marriage.  Domineering tones and condescending attitudes invalidate one another.   Markman, Stanley, and Blumberg (2010) said, “Invalidation sets up barriers in relationships.  Invalidation hurts.  It leads naturally to covering up who you are and what you think because it’s just too risky to do otherwise” (p. 49).  These practices should be avoided and replaced with acceptance and understanding.

5.) Specific, Not Global – a focus on specific events or behaviors and avoid general, extreme, or either-or statements.  General and global statements leave little hope of improvement.  Specific statements clearly identify detailed behaviors and attitudes that can be corrected and addressed.  Blanket comments leave spouses helpless and hopeless.  Markman, Stanley, & Blumberg (2010) said, “Most of us react more to our interpretation of what was said than to what our partner meant and actually did say.  Researchers call this behavior maladaptive attribution.  In other words, people tend to make consistent, negative judgments of their partner’s motives” (p. 202).  Being specific in our communication leaves no room for misinterpretation of behavior or motive.

 6.) Conjunctive, Not Disjunctive – a focus on statements that flow from what has been said previously and facilitate interaction.  One of the most common characteristics of disjunctive behavior within marriage is a lack of equal opportunity to speak.  When one person interrupts another; when someone dominates by controlling “air time,” or when one person keeps speaking over the other, the communication is disjunctive (Whetten & Cameron, 2011).  To improve the marriage, spouses must improve their communication.  This can be achieved by more listening and less talking.  Giving your spouse time to explain their feelings and express their concerns without cutting them off or highlighting a behavior that you dislike are instrumental attributes of conjunctive communication.  Too often spouses are formulating a defensive response and not truly listening to their spouse’s concern.  I’ve often told men, “Regardless of whether you believe what your wife is saying, you must listen.  It is truth to her and that is what matters in the moment.”  Spouses will never be able to lead the marriage toward reconciliation if they cannot communicate freely and equally in the early stages of the communication process.

7.) Owned, Not Disowned – a focus on taking responsibility for your own statements by using personal (“I”) words.  Ownership and responsibility are keys to personal growth and to trusting and effective interpersonal relationships (Whetten & Cameron, 2011).  John Gottman determined that how couples begin talks about issues determines 96 percent of the subsequent course of the conversation (Markman, Stanley, & Blumberg, 2010).  That means that starting conversations by avoiding or deflecting responsibility will derail the communication process before it has a chance to begin.  When a spouse “owns a statement” it frees the other to do likewise.  Rather than point fingers and assign blame, spouses should own their respective parts of the problem without assigning responsibilities to the other.  Ownership facilitates vulnerability, forgiveness, and unity.  Disowning actions creates possibilities for blame, shame, and superiority complexes.

8.) Supportive Listening, Not One-Way Listening – a focus on using a variety of appropriate responses, with a bias toward reflective responses.  Listening is the key communication tool within marriage.  Rather than listening to “fix problems,” spouses should listen to understand your spouse’s heart.  Milan and Kay Yerkovich (2006) said, “It takes growth and practice to be an effective speaker and an effective listener.  But, overall, the listener role is more challenging and takes a bit more practice to master” (p. 252).  They further define the goal of listening as “to gain the speaker’s perspective on a situation by asking questions about feelings, thoughts, and experiences” (p. 382).  They identify the following four keys of listening for marriage:

1.     Ask the speaker to stop periodically so you can summarize what you’re hearing

2.     Repeat in your own words what you heard and check for accuracy

3.     Ask questions that will increase your understanding

4.     Respond with empathy

Being a good listener is neither easy nor automatic.  It requires developing the ability to hear and understand the message sent by another person, while at the same time helping to strengthen the relationship between husband and wife.  Practicing the four steps above and having a desire to improve the relationship will help marriages overcome longstanding communication struggles and preconceived hopelessness that has fraught many previous conversations. 

          I’ve often told couples, “If one of you improves your communication, then the marriage improves by 50 percent.  Who wouldn’t want to improve anything by 50 percent?”  While I respect that marriage requires two people, one person has to initiate a better way to communicate.  What is holding you back from being that person?  The effects of a positive relationships are much stronger and more long lasting than just making people feel happy or uplifted.  When individuals are able to build relationships that are positive and that create energy, important physiological, emotional, intellectual, and social consequences result (Whetten & Cameron, 2011).  In short, a happy marriage makes for a happy person.

Steve

References:

Keller, T. (2011). The meaning of marriage. New York, NY: Penguin Group.

Markman, H.J., Stanley, S.M., & Blumberg, S.L. (2010). Fighting for your marriage. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Metaxas, E. (2010). Bonhoeffer. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Whetten, D.A., & Cameron, K.S. (2011). Developing management skills. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Yerkovich, M., & Yerkovich, K. (2006). How we love. Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook Press.