Reciprocity Principle

"I scratch your back, then you scratch mine." How many times have we heard that expression or even used it ourselves? Countless, I'm sure. This is the essence of what social psychologists view as the reciprocity principle. People tend to give back what they have received from others. If you are nice to me, then I will be nice to you. This principle represents the foundation of spoken and unspoken understandings between people that provides parameters in which they behave toward each other. Without such a belief, people behave in ways which only suit. They have no predisposition to treat others in a particular way, nor do they concern themselves with how others behave toward them.

This principle often is seen in how people communicate with each other. If a person talks respectably to another, then usually they themselves are treated respectably in return. A breakdown occurs if one behaves outside that conventional norm without the blessing or support of others. Without mutual buy-in, there is a lack of balance in any interaction. For instance, two people are talking when suddenly one gets angry and begins screaming at the other. The one being screamed at tries to calm the one who is upset. The two, at this point, are not communicating in any balanced or reciprocal way.

Communication works best when reciprocity is at-play. This, it should be acknowledged, does not guarantee successful interaction. But it sure makes the chances of success or the achievement of mutual understanding and respect greater. Each of us enter into any kind of exchange with certain expectations that how we communicate will be matched in-kind. Such an expectation, though understandable, is fragile unless both parties agree that they will communicate with each other in a certain way. Without such an agreement, then an interaction lacks order and is more open to chaos and breakdowns. Reciprocity is the key.

Battle Royal

There is a very graphic scene in Ralph's Ellison's classic "Invisible Man" in which multiple African American men are brought together by well-to-do southern White men and forced to fight until there is only one left standing. At that point, that person is given some sort of cash prize along with the cheers of the fight's witnesses for putting on an enjoyable show. It is a disturbing scene made all the more so by Ellison's wonderful prose. (By the way, reading this book - published 65 years ago - is much like being in the presence of greatness. The clarity of Ellison's story and the strength of the theme remain current.)   

This battle royal is not unlike what many of us witness on the array of interview talk shows in which guests of opposing views along with the host often end up talking over each other in an attempt to be the last person standing or, in their own minds, "win the day" by out talking the others. More often than not, it is a hollow victory. The times I have watched such a scene occur has not only left me unenlightened, it has also turned me off turned me off by all of the guests even if it is folks with whom I normally agree. They have done a disservice to themselves and, just as importantly, to the topic itself.

Effective communication is not about "winning." Instead, it is about properly putting forth one's thoughts or perspective in a respectful manner that enables the person on the receiving end to communicate likewise. Such a description may seem simplistic but the fact is we as a society seem to be seeing a lot less of it than ever. Effective communication is about civil discourse and not about out-arguing or talking-over others. Debating speaks more to the concept of winning. Effective communication is far more about "doing" or the act of interaction. I, for one, long for the day when we see far more of than we do verbal battle royals. 

Humanity

Let us cut to the chase. We all come from a mother and a father. We all laugh and sing and cry and bleed and get hurt feelings and reach out to others when we can. We have hopes and fears and strengths and weaknesses. We can be mean and selfless all in the same day. We enjoy the company of others yet do not shy away from alone-time when it appears. We have skills and talent yet appear silly depending what it is we are doing. We know a lot, yet know less a lot more. The list of qualities and characteristics and traits that define us is practically never-ending. Yet when asked to describe ourselves, our usual response is just a few words.

So, what does all this mean? What is the grand total when all all these variables are added up? The answer, as I see it, is we are complex creatures. We may appear to be simple and God knows do all we can to view each other in the most simplistic terms. Yet the truth is we are multi-layered and deserve never to be described in a broad-brush way. We are too intelligent and dumb for such categorizing. Our complexity runs far too deep for that. Given that, is it any wonder that communicating effectively with each other rarely goes smoothly? Is it any wonder that communication within humanity is, at best, uneven?

Things that do come easily are so easy and even tempting to discard. After all, who wants to work hard on anything all the time? Yet that is the challenge of communication. If it is to be done well, then it requires hard work, non-stop tenacity and much patience. This is why communication is so exhausting. It is unrelenting. But who better to meet the challenge then all of us who comprise humanity? We owe it to ourselves to never turn away from the challenge of communicating well because doing that hurts no one but ourselves. For the sake of humanity, we need to step up to the challenge ever day.

The Ability to Change

Nearly 250 years ago Thomas Paine - that great rabble rouser - put forth the notion that people have it within them to change the world. They can, he said, make change. Reverse course. Alter what is to what can or should be. At the time, Paine was trying to stir up the American colonists to rebel against England. (Spoiler alert: he succeeded.) His words remain timeless. People, individually and collectively, have the power to adjust, take different paths, or even stop one course of action and replace it with another. Yes, we are creatures of habit - I sure am - but that mainly is by choice. We can different choices to follow different habits.

On a more intimate level, Paine's words apply to each of us in terms of how we communicate. There are those, for instance, who do not listen all that well. They prefer putting forth their thoughts or ideas and not making much of an effort to hear what others might say. For no doubt multiple reasons, they communicate in a one-sided way because such a style is easy and works for them. But even those who are not inclined to listen to others, experience feelings of dissatisfaction that their interactions with others are not always as fulfilling as they might like. Even these folks have the ability to change. 

Not all interactions or exchanges go smoothly. Consensus or even mutual understanding is not always achieved. This is something that we all experience from time to time. But some men and women find themselves in non-satisfying interactions more often than they prefer. This is no way to live. Ideally, the majority of our exchanges should be successful. Each of has the intellect and internal energy to make that a regular part of our reality. So, if miscommunication seems to be too much of a part of one's daily life, then take heart and draw inspiration from the sentiments of Thomas Paine. The ability to initiate change is very much part of our DNA.

How Can I Be Better?

It is a question one is not asked very often. At least in my experience, rarely have I had another adult ask my view on how they might improve as a worker. Many of us, I believe, might ponder such a question to ourselves, silently in our own heads. But to come forward and out loud ask for direct feedback on such a personal level is not common. I mention this because it happened to me just a few days ago. Someone whom I supervise at work is leaving soon. She asked if she could talk with me and - pow! - came right out and asked moments after we sat down. Yes, I was surprised but also impressed.

That aside, my response revolved around communication. Specifically, it pertained to the mindset of how we approach interactions with other. Do we connect with another for the purpose of getting out of that what we can or do we try to communicate in a way that serves the interaction or exchange itself? Remember: serving the interaction does not mean not trying to obtain information we seek or passing along an opinion, for instance, we wish to share. Without question we have these needs. The challenge comes in seeking to achieve those needs without running rough-shod over the needs or feelings of others.

The worker with whom I talked already does a commendable job of putting her needs in the context of the greater good. Like me, she falls under the umbrella of the organization itself and is charged with striving to ensure its goals are met successfully. I urged her to continue to be mindful of this as she moves on with the next phase of her life. Whether it is a company where we might be employed or a relationship we wish to preserve, I believe we all fall under a "greater good" in all aspects of our lives. That is what we need to serve and no way can we do it more effectively than by communicating effectively and with regard to other's.

What's in it for Me?

Here is something that I have always found to be a bit of a puzzle: On the one hand, people are viewed largely as creatures that are motivated by self interest. "What's in it for me?" seems to be a mantra that drives pretty much all of us. How will taking a certain action bring the most benefit or reward to me? Often times, I confess that those questions pop into my head whenever a request of me is made or I am called upon to make a choice. I challenge any one to claim they do not at least consider similar questions under similar circumstances. As I "see" no hands being raised, I will assume this is a commonality we all share.

Despite that, acting within one's self interest is depicted as being a negative characteristic. Never mind that that is the case for everyone. When one confirms they are taking an action that serves their interest, then the general public views them unfavorably. Why is this the case?  I raise this question with the full understanding that altruistic behavior is viewed by the general public as a positive quality to have. At the same time, it is not necessarily behavior practiced by others as part of an innate characteristic. Further, acting within one's self-interest is what all of us do as part of our routine.

I raise all this as a way of identifying an interesting communication challenge faced by professional communicators charged with promoting a public figure of some kind. The communicator seeks to present their client in a positive light, yet the client is no doubt taking action or making decisions based on elevating their own status on some level. Why not promote that reality? Why not send out a press release saying a particular celebrity donated thousands of dollars to fight cancer, for instance, simply because it made them feel good? Instead, the release avoids such a hard truth and instead suggests the donation was driven only by a desire to help others.

Answer the Question!

In boxing, there are several kinds of punches. One of the most fun and colorful is the roundhouse. Here, the boxer pulls back his fist as far as he or she can and then with as much speed and force as possible let's loose with the punch for is hoped to be devastating consequences. Spectators love watching the roundhouse as it is easy to spot and really looks as if it is going to be "lights out" for the person on the receiving end of it. Unfortunately, because roundhouse punches are easy to detect, they usually are not all that successful as trained boxers can easily counter them with some type of evasive action.

Interestingly, one punch that is less spectacular yet usually far more effective is the straight right or left. Here, the boxer thrusts his or her fist at their opponent's face with direct power. The opponent has far less time to react to this punch. I mention all this to note how often in interview situations, the direct answer - much like the straight punch - is often the one with the most impact and power. "Why should we hire you for this position?" the interviewer might ask. "Because I am well organized, work well with others, and have strong computer skills," is one straightforward answer that will make any inquisitor take note.

Such a response is so much better than, "I have spent many years in this field and really enjoy working in an office setting." While that may be somewhat relevant, it sure does not much power. Particularly those who are seeking information, people prefer being communicated with directly. They want their questions answered in a straight forward manner. In boxing, the roundhouse is usually most effective when it follows a straight punch. In interview situations, the same is true. Detailed explanations are often most memorable when they follow a direct answer. Such a one-two sequence helps make for effective communication.

Giving Directions

A funny thing happened to me on the way to work the other day: a stranger stopped and asked me for directions. Why is this "funny?" The answer is because I am an American living and working in South Korea and the person asking me for directions was a Korean. While I do not think for a moment that just because a person born in a country should know where everything in that country is located, I was amused that, in this case, a person born in Korean would turn to a person like me who by all appearances was not born here. Not surprisingly, yet to my regret, I was not able to give this person any meaningful assistance.

Still, this points to a larger communication challenge: effectively providing guidance to a person unfamiliar with where they are on how to go from one location to another. "Drive for about a half mile, turn left at the third light and you're there." What is more straight-forward than that? Often times, however, the direction is not that easy. If a person is truly lost, then advising them on how best to reach their destination in a way that is fairly simple, understandable and above all accurate is not all that easy. It is akin to trying to communicate in a language with which you are unfamiliar. This is because you are trying to share information in a way that is clear to the listener. What you are saying is not about you.

More often than not, when asked for directions, I first try to assess what the person doing the asking knows or does not know about the area. If we both share at least a bit knowledge about the area, then that gives us a starting point from which to communicate. Lacking that makes our communication exchange more difficult but not necessarily destined to fail. Either way, assuming I can, in fact, help the person who is lost, I try to do two things: give them the needed information in bite sizes based on specific landmarks; and give them a sense of how close they will be to their destination at each landmark. People, I figure, need that assurance. I know I sure do.