- Producer07/01/2017The Problem with Communication – Part IIIn the introduction to this series of posts, The Problem with Communication – Part I, I discussed the etymology of words in the English language, a few of the processes the human brain uses when receiving information and processing it, and a...
Comments07/01/2017 #9 Ali AnaniVery interesting buzz dear @Edward Lewellen, Your avocado story is spot on. It amazes me how we interpret communication. This is in accordance with what you mentioned as "The illusion of communication".
I am hoping to read Part 3 soon so that I may share my views of the as a bundle. All what I can add now is this is truly a novel approach to the communication issue.07/01/2017 #8 CityVP 🐝 ManjitI can now add mistakes of interpretation in line with the avacado story with mistakes of intent.
Glad that Part 2 was posted just after Part 1, because I saved Part 1 originally to my Gray Hive, but then quickly thought that my new Magenta hive is where Part 1 should be. So instead of removing the buzz from the Gray Hive I accidentally hit the "Hide Buzz" option - so at least now I have a link to both. The reason I don't put it into both hives is that this series allows me to think about the mind. Whereas David Grinberg's comment #7 helps me to think about the act of communication (hence Gray Hive).
Same as my first comment, it is great to think of this as a "Brain Operators Guide" - the manual we never received when we were born, but discovered through insights like this.07/01/2017 #7 David B. GrinbergNice post, Edward, you provide excellent information on the brain processes information consciously and subconsciously.
As a professional communicator, I would also note the following advice (which you may have covered already in Part I):
1) Practice "Active Listening" (google it). As famous talk show host Larry King once remarked (and other have repeated in some form): "I never learned anything while I was talking."
2) Studies show the most effective communication is non-verbal! This might come as a surprise to some who believe talking elicits the best response from others. But most people respond better to visual cues, such as body language and facial expressions.
3) Understand the difference between listening/hearing versus comprehending what's being said. The two can sometimes be mutual exclusive, per the phrase, "In one ear, out the other."
Again, good read and series, Edward. Keep buzzing in 2017!07/01/2017 #6 debasish majumderonce i came across a story, where a mathematician being asked to look after the luggage by his wife in the airport while she went out fetch for a cab. she told repeatedly to her husband, that there was only ten luggage the possess. while returning the spot after securing a cab, she found that her husband in utter distress. when she asked what was the reason, her husband replied that she told her ten luggage, but he was finding nine luggage, and he stated to count in front of her, one, two,....nine, zero. his wife became wild, but the reality is, the mathematician have utter different than common folk. now, the question is how will you define this communication gap and what are the measures to overcome it? however, intriguing post indeed @Edward Lewellen! thank you for the share.
- Producer16/10/2016Construction demands good communicationAs a child we played a game which I’m sure many of you played. We sat in a circle and one person whispered a message in to their neighbour’s ear who then passed the message to their neighbour by whispering in their ear, who passed the message on,...
Comments16/10/2016 #1 Lisa 🐝 GallagherVery thorough article @Paul Netscher. I agree, good communication is vital. This not construction work related but contractor work- we once hired a company to remove all of our shrubs and replace them with new shrubs. The man was in his late 70's (the owner) of this large landscaping business. We had a contract but it was explicit enough to cover us. We placed too much faith in this man because of his age and he appeared to be a man of his word. They never came back to take care of the new shrubs the next summer as promised (it wasn't in the contract) and he also planted shrubs we did not agree on- again the contract was too vague. We learned a lesson with that one. He charged us A LOT of money, so it was a major disappointment that his word was not sincere. That was our fault in the end.
- Producer05/07/20164 Ways to Improve Communication Across Departments at Your Property“You did what?”You snarl at your marketing manager.Once again, the marketing team has oversold their sponsorships. This error attacks your budget. It forces you to be reactive.But, what has you upset the most is that they decided to tell you this...
- Producer28/06/2016Why Workforce Diversity is Simply Good BusinessMost savvy employers understand the business case for diversity, which has been well documented over the years ad nauseam. But not every company has gotten the message.It should be evident by now that diverse employees bring diverse ideas and...
Comments31/07/2016 #37 Brian McKenzieTalent is Global, the market place is international - I am not diverse enough to be of consideration in the American HR / ATS / EEOC intersection of quota vortex. Hell, as a white guy, middle aged, of non LGBT affiliation, with no disabilities, nor criminal record - I am of the set that is the last vestige of condoned and encouraged discrimination; apparently I am slathered in privilege as well. I am nobody's diversity rainbow widget. 8?/ If it wasn't for my foreign language and living overseas - I wouldn't be employed at all.30/06/2016 #34 David B. GrinbergThanks again for the vigorous debate & discussion, your latest comments are appreciated @Mark Tillman Davis (no insults or fowl language, please, let's hold beBee to higher standards of civil discourse) @Jeffrey Boxer @Loribeth Pierson @Paul "Pablo" Croubalian @Teresa Gezze @Lada 🏡 Prkic. Now, let me try to clarify this in the hope that we can all reach some common ground here:
Equal opportunity and workforce diversity are NOT about quotas, statistics or passing up the most qualified employees and applicants. It's all about what I call the "Freedom to Compete" on -- yes -- a fair and level playing field. To use a runners analogy, this means that all qualified employees and applicants get a place at the starting line to run the marathon. There is no predetermined outcome of who wins. Only the most talented and qualified person wins the marathon, based strictly on qualifications and merit. But no qualified individual should be explicitly or implicitly excluded from having the "opportunity" to run due to factors such as color, race, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, race, gender, religion, etc. Does this make sense?30/06/2016 #33 Mark Tillman Davis#30 @Jeffery Boxer, you're reply is both incorrect and stupid. 1) There is no such thing as a level playing field. 2) Artificially helping one group comes at the expense of another group. 3) Not everyone wins no matter how hard they try. 4) Life's tough. It's even tougher when you are a perpetual victim.30/06/2016 #27 Jeffrey Boxer#19 Mark, I'm going to take up the mantle for @Teresa Gezze. I think "all things equal, choose the minority" is a really tired characterization of the issue. First off, because all things being equal, the white male is almost always the one that is chosen. 99% of Fortune 500 CEOs are white, and there is a reason for that. Harvard only admits students with the most AP credits (which excludes students that did not have access to those classes), then companies only hire Ivy League kids because they are the most "qualified" and the cycle continues. You call it social engineering, I call it ensuring equal opportunity and allowing for social mobility. Like @Paul "Pablo" Croubalian says, diversity "should" be automatic. Until then, this makes sense to me.30/06/2016 #26 Jeffrey BoxerI worked on the editorial board of a newspaper in the Boston area that was far whiter than the community that we served. Every one of us was talented and "deserved" to be there, but the stories we covered (naturally) skewed towards what we knew. A college journalism student with the right background and language skills would have been a way more useful hire for us than a Pulitzer Prize winner. I think that holds true across a lot of different fields. To me, the value of workplace diversity is obvious. Thank you for the post, @David B. Grinberg!29/06/2016 #23 Sarah ElkinsYou know I believe in a diverse workforce, @David B. Grinberg! I wish, though, that you had stayed with the original theme here: The value of a diverse workforce. As soon as you tread into the "because it's the law" and statistics showing that discrimination exists, you lost half of your audience to defensiveness and frustration. The drum beat must be about the value of diversity, not the consequences of discrimination, I think. Share the advantages and continue to prove the value and maybe, just maybe, we can get past the labels.29/06/2016 #22 David B. GrinbergMany thanks for your constructive comments and vigorous debate on this important issue. You all make strong and impressive points with conviction. I would just say that with the increasing diversity in the USA populace -- with Hispanics/Latinos and Asians being the fastest growing demographic groups -- I believe the workforce diversity question will ultimately resolve itself IF employers base their recruiting, hiring and advancement decisions strictly based on talent and merit alone. Discrimination has no place in the workplace or any place.
I would further note the affirmative actions for private employers in voluntarily under the law and employment quotas are unlawful unless ordered by a court (which is rare). Thus, employers should hire and promote the best talent available, regardless of any non-job related factors. Thanks again for your valuable comments, which are most appreciated. @Rod Loader @Paul "Pablo" Croubalian @Teresa Gezze @Donna-Luisa Eversley @Mark Tillman Davis @Brian McKenzie @Franci🐝Eugenia Hoffman @Arnie McKinnis29/06/2016 #21 Qamar Ali KhanVery well written post @David B. Grinberg! You selected a very important, but highly neglected, point to be essentially considered in employment environment. I have managed large teams of diverse workers and employees. I saw diversity as a great asset, if properly handled. I agree with all the advantages you mentioned. Plus diversity raises the sense of responsibility in terms of better performance in employees. Employees belonging to different environments have their own and unique mindset individually about something. Some daily or even unique, issues need a different approach that might not be possible to emerge from the thoughts of a local employee. The specific problem can be well-tackled by an employee from another and different environment, as they might be used to such problems. Thank you David for such an excellent piece.29/06/2016 #20 Qamar Ali KhanVery well written post @David B. Grinberg! You selected a very important, but highly neglected, point to be essentially considered in employment environment. I have managed large teams of diverse workers and employees. I saw diversity as a great asset, if properly handled. I agree with all the advantages you mentioned. Plus diversity raises the sense of responsibility in terms of better performance in employees. Employees belonging to different environments have their own and unique mindset individually about something. Some daily or even unique, issues need a different approach that might not be possible to emerge from the thoughts of a local employee. The specific problem can be well-tackled by an employee from another and different environment, as they might be used to such problems. Thank you David for such an excellent piece.29/06/2016 #19 Mark Tillman Davis#18 @Teresa Gezze So rather than have the courage to just say "all things being equal, choose someone other than the white guy" out of some misguided sense of serving a great good, you choose to retreat from an indefensible position. Got it. Any decision, no matter how well intended, that seeks to choose/give preference to one person over another that is based upon any factor(s) other than the required criteria/qualifications, discriminates against some person and/or group.29/06/2016 #18 Teresa Gezze#17 #17 I used the quotation marks because I think that point comes as a given - and the point I’m trying to get across is a different one -. So, I would rather just leave my opinion there to not change the focus of what I was trying to state. Nice talking to you all, bees.
- Producer27/06/2016Knowledge Management - how does that fit in?A few weeks ago I found myself thinking about this issue while designing the new structure of business processes for the company I currently work for. Not that I was not aware where I was inserted into the structure but asked myself: for...
- Producer21/06/2016Salesforce.com outage: the beginning of the end?On May 10, 2016, the famous " No Software " slogan had a renewed meaning in the enterprise business - there was actually no software at all for many Salesforce customers out there for almost an entire day, caused by an outage and service...
Comments25/06/2016 #5 Qamar Ali KhanExcellent work Manuel Breschi! The real concept of could computing was kept behind the clouds when this computing and storage system was gradually introduced. It's a totally unethical practice if the users are compelled to store each and everything on cloud (another computer of somebody else's). This is a breach of privacy. I wonder why such practices have not been challenged in courts. There must be clear, sound, and healthy regulations about them. I saw the comments below, and I agree with Neal Rauhauser's point of view.