Sailing the Seven C's

I'm preparing a talk that I'll give this evening at Friends House, a Quaker retirement facility in Santa Rosa CA. As part of it I'll be talking about how to build community. In wrestling with how to organize my material (and be entertaining at the same time), I've hit upon the rubric of the Seven C's, which I'm test driving here:

1. Communication
The key here is developing the ability to listen accurately. Of course, it also helps to be able to be clear and concise in stating your own views, yet hearing well is crucial. Doing this well typically means developing a range of ways to communicate (styles and formats), so that you are using a language that is comfortable and easily understood by others. If making the connection is important, then be prepared to travel most of the way to others, instead of making them come to you.

Factors here include slang, time of day, how long you speak without pausing for the other person to respond, eye contact... even how close you are physically to the other person. There's a lot to this!

2. Curiosity
How interested are you (or more to the point, how interested do you appear to be) in what others are saying, especially if they have views that are different than your own. The more genuinely welcoming you can be, the better this is going to go. Please understand that I'm not saying you have to agree with someone to be curious about how they got there.

3. Courage
When you are uncertain about how to say something well, or how it will be received, it can be challenging to speak up. I'm focusing here on voicing your views (especially when you suspect they will be unpopular), asking questions (all the more if you think people will roll their eyes or label them "stupid questions"), being willing to change your mind in public, being willing to try something new or uncomfortable, and bringing your passion into the conversation. All of these things take courage.

4. Complexity
People are different. I know you knew that, but I mean really different. For the most part, our model of ideal meeting behavior is that people don't raise their voices, speak one at a time, and contribute essentially on a rational level. While all of those things can be helpful, it is be no means the only ways people communicate (or feel comfortable communicating). Can you work emotionally, kinesthetically, intuitively, spiritually? To the extent you can, it will greatly expand how well you can genuinely connect with others (and connection is the root of community).

5. Conflict
Mostly we have a culture that is afraid of conflict (because mostly we have experiences where conflict leads to hurts and damaged relationships). The key, however, is not how much conflict exists; it's how well you respond to it. The way I see it, conflict (which I'm defining as at least two different points of view and at least one non-trivial emotional upset) is normal and we need to have an understanding about what's happening and a way to work with it that doesn't pathologize the people who are upset. This is huge.

6. Civility
I'm not talking about pretending to be nice. Rather, I'm talking about intentionally selecting ways to communicate that you believe will be easier for others to understand and not be triggered by. It makes little sense to insert cuss words into every other sentence spoken to a church group, for example.

7. Constructiveness
Last, it pays to keep your eyes on the prize. If community is the goal, emphasize connection and see to it that your comments are forward moving. Focus more on what you think may bridge a difficult dynamic than advocating for your view. It's problem solving, not a debate.
Share this via Hugg!

I am curious to find that

Paul's picture

I am curious to find that many seem to read the threads on this, the FEC site, but few if any respond. Maybe their energy is spent in 3d community leaving little or none for the virtual?

Anyway, Laird, I think this is great stuff. I see that the date of your talk is past and that your "test driving" this was perhaps in route to your talk :). I am interested in how it went, particularly since I participate in the Quaker way of things. I would guess that you found the group to be decent listeners. Quaker "worship" involves sitting in silence for an hour and 'listening." So, how'd it go?

Response to Paul

Paul wrote: "I am curious to find that many seem to read the threads on this, the FEC
site, but few if any respond. Maybe their energy is spent in 3d
community leaving little or none for the virtual?"

Hard to say. The whole blogging culture is still new to me.

Paul: "I see that the date of your
talk is past and that your "test driving" this was perhaps in route to
your talk :). I am interested in how it went, particularly since I
participate in the Quaker way of things. I would guess that you found
the group to be decent listeners. Quaker "worship" involves sitting in
silence for an hour and 'listening." So, how'd it go?"

It went well. As it turned out, I went head-to-head with Barack's acceptance speech (the evening of Aug 28). They taped that and offered me live. There were about 22 in the room. As you projected, they listened well (I kept my comments to 45 minutes) and had a bunch of comments at the end. I even got a few Communities magazine subscriptions out of it and some donations for gas money. It was fun.

I frequently try to figure out new ways to package messages with word play. Some work better than others.

Thanks for asking,
Laird

"Tommy can you hear me...?"

Paul's picture

Laird wrote: "Thanks for asking"

You are welcome. Truly. I appreciate the thought and effort of what you wrote, and I appreciate the thought and effort of what you shared with the Quakers.

Laird wrote: "I frequently try to figure out new ways to package messages with word play. Some work better than others."

A word smith? I am glad for people who pay attention to how they speak. It's like adding seasoning to food. It's always wonderful when you encounter a careful chef.

I went through a phase in my life where I purposed to be very plain in my speech, putting most of the onus on the content of the message and on the listener to hear vs. the packaging. But that was when I was religious and thought I might be conveying "the word of God." I reasoned "God" needed to really do the conveying. Eeeek, lol. Given my methods, I didn't sway very many people, a good thing. My methods were part of the ultimate undoing of my beliefs, also a very good thing. But I learned some stuff in the process. Now I take responsibility for my words so I feel comfortable playing with them in an effort to better communicate, connect.

I see a common thread woven through your method/s. Under "communication" you stress "listening." Under "curiosity" you emphasize showing interest or appearing interested. Under "courage" you include a willingness to change, i.e., be swayed by the person you are speaking with. Under "complexity" you seem to hint at mirroring (finding a way of communicating that the listener relates to). Mirroring is a way of establishing rapport because the recipient senses instant value seeing themselves, he he. Under "conflict" you recognize the need to not "pathologize" (that's a great word) another because they differ, and I agree that this is"huge." "Civility" seems to speak of seeing and respecting your listener. Then "constructiveness" vs. demolition? The goal being to connect and maybe even see together not win an argument or assertion, or even necessarily persuade.

I think each of these 'methods' touches on an intrinsic human need, i.e., the need to be known and valued. Each of these "methods" acknowledges and affirms the listeners value. I think when people perceive this, you have their attention.