Conversation 11: How to Communicate with People

Where did we leave off last time?

As you recall, to manage anything well, we have to make good decisions and then implement them with as little internal disintegration as possible. When we’re not managing well, we are either making bad decisions or implementing them in a more prolonged, painful, or expensive way than necessary.

Right

So far we have said that conflict is natural because we need a complementary team to make good decisions and a commonality of interests to implement those decisions. Both create conflicts: conflicts of styles and conflicts of interests. To make these conflicts functional, not destructive we need…

A culture of Mutual Trust and Respect.

Do you recall the four factors necessary for MT&R from our previous conversation?

Common vision and values, a collaborative decision-making process, a diversified (PAEI) organizational structure, and mature people who command and grant trust and respect.

One way to easily remember those four factors is to think of cooking a gourmet dish. For that you need fresh, high-quality ingredients. That is the people factor. They are a critical ingredient, your raw material. Then you need a recipe. You can destroy the best ingredients if you do not have a recipe that shows you how to cook them together. That means a collaborative decision-making process. Next you need a good oven and cooking utensils. That is the structure. Last, you need to decide what kind of meal you want to cook; for example, is it a Mexican or Italian meal? You need to have common vision and values.

We can also classify the variables in (PAEI) terms. What do you think common vision and values are?

(E)

Diversified structure?

(A)

Collaborative decision making?

(P)

And the people factor?

(I)

We have not yet discussed how to develop a common vision and values—we just do not have all the time needed for these discussions—but I have made a video on the subject. We briefly touched on the subject of structure when I explained why you should not have one VP for sales and marketing, or for production and engineering. For more on structure you can read Managing Corporate Lifecycles or watch a video of mine about the subject.

Later we’ll discuss what kind of people grant and command MT&R. As to the collaborative decision-making process, it has three parts. To begin, we must learn how to have an effective dialogue, how to communicate with a person in a style he can understand, and that is the subject of this conversation. The second part is how to handle different perceptions, and the third part is how to manage meetings, which we will cover in future conversations.

Great, I am ready.

TopLeaf video series, “How to Define an Organization’s Mission.” Available from adizes.com

We determined that one source of miscommunication lies in individuals’ styles of demonstrating agreement or disagreement. For example, when (E)ntrepreneurs disagree with an idea they will usually be very expressive about it. They’re also expressive when they agree with an idea.

Is that why I don’t know whether they’re agreeing or disagreeing half the time? They speak so animatedly, that it seems as if they’re always disagreeing.

That energy can upset us. We might even feel we have to disagree with them, now that they have raised their voice at us. When (A)s disagree, however, they are very calm. They just look at you, lower their chin, and freeze. That can cause miscommunication because (E)s interpret the silence as agreement when (A)s are actually disagreeing.

We also discussed how the words “yes” and “no” can have different meanings depending on the speaker. You can’t define the words according to your own understanding. You have to look at who is speaking, rather than listening with your own bias.

What do you mean by listening with your own bias?

In all the world’s major religions there is something called the Golden Rule.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

This is the wrong approach to management communication. If you communicate with oth- ers as you want them to communicate with you, what mistake will you make?

If you are an (E)ntrepreneur, you’ll communicate to others as if they are (E)s.

This idea isn’t anything new. If you go to the bank to apply for a loan, you’re not going to wear loud or shabby clothing, are you? You’ll probably dress conservatively, sit quietly, and answer the banker’s questions politely. You are attempting to be responsive to her style. You are trying to act like a banker.

Before you talk to people, you have to ask yourself, “Whom am I talking to?” When people talk to you, you have to ask yourself, “Who is talking to me?” Then you can correctly interpret what they are saying and can communicate to them in a way they can understand.

The Adizes Institute has a test, the Management Styles Indicator (MSI), to analyze the style of a person, what he would like his style to be, and what style is required by his responsibility.

This is interesting, but how does it relate to management?

One aspect of management or leadership is the selling of ideas. If you can’t communicate and convince, you cannot lead. All sales people will tell you that you must know your clients. You have to focus on communicating to your clients so they will understand you even though each of them speaks what sounds like a different language.

Let’s try to systematize this with a diagram that describes decision-making styles as they impact communication.

DIAGRAMA

In the upper part, you have priorities. On the right side is result orientation—the what and why—versus process orientation—the how and who. Some people are results oriented, while others pay more attention to the process of producing results.

The horizontal line at the bottom of the diagram indicates the speed at which people make decisions. On the left side the decision making is slow, and on the right side it is fast.

What does all this mean?

It means that some people make decisions slowly. There’s a joke about bureaucrats: You shouldn’t tell a bureaucrat a joke on Friday because he might laugh in church on Sunday. This is not true for (E)ntrepreneurs, who react very quickly. They will interrupt your joke because it reminded them of another joke.

What do the vertical lines stand for?

On the right side we have focus: global at the top, local at the bottom. This dimension corresponds to the window analogy we talked about before. One person may see the view while somebody else sees only the dirty frame. Some people have a global view, while others pay attention to the details. The last variable is the process by which people make decisions. Some process information in an unstructured way, others in structured manner.

What do those terms mean in this case?

In an unstructured process, a person may start talking about Y, which reminds him of Z. Then he goes to Q, then to B, then to C, and finally, to X. He goes back and forth, because he is thinking in a holistic way; everything is related to everything else. In structured processes, however, people are linear. They don’t like to start talking about B until they fully understand A.

If we look at the chart, we’ll see that the four styles—(P)roducer, (A)dministrator, (E)ntrepre- neur, and (I)ntegrator—will fit into the four boxes. Who has the global, fastmoving, unstruc- tured style of decision making?

The (E)ntrepreneurial types.

Who is fast, structured, and focused on details and results?

The (P)s.

They are like railroad engineers: They say, “Show me the tracks and get out of the way.” In the workplace, they are the ones most likely to say, “What do we need to do? Let’s go and do it. We have a business to run. Talk less, do more.”

That makes sense.

Who has the structured, slow-moving style focused on process and details?

The (A)dministrators.

Now read the (I) style from the chart.

They are process-oriented, slow, and unstructured; that is why they can be so politically astute. They have a global view. They can change and adapt.

If we look at this diagram and the different styles of different people, we can see why they might miscommunicate. The (E)ntrepreneurial types will be most in conflict with the types diagonal to them, the (A)dministrators. Mixing these two together is like mixing oil and water. It is going to be very difficult.

Can you give me some examples of these conflicts?

The (E)ntrepreneurs process information very quickly. They usually start thinking with very little stimulus. When an (E) goes to a meeting with an (A)dministrator, he has already started thinking in the corridor. By the time he hits the (A)dministrator’s office, he’s al- ready moving at 150 miles an hour. He hits the (A) like a ton of bricks. (A)s are slow, not because they are stupid, but because they are thinking about all the repercussions of what the (E)s are saying. It takes them time to process each idea. When they get hit by the ideas of the (E)ntrepreneurs, it’s like an avalanche. For any single (E) idea there are at least ten repercus- sions that matter to (A)s. The (A)dministrators can’t handle the load or the speed, and soon stop thinking and listening all together. They just let ideas pass them by, accusing the (E)s of be- ing full of hot air. The (A)s might start hoping the (E)s leave soon so they can get back to work.

Meanwhile, the silence of the (A)dministrators is misconstrued by (E)s as agreement.

Right, and imagine the misunderstanding that ensues. (E)s don’t like to make appointments. The moment they have an idea they want to deal with it, and they might show up unan- nounced at the (A)s’ office. The (A)dministrators, however, hate surprises. The (A)s have ev- erything organized—their desk, their files, their day, their vacation, their year, their life—and here comes an unguided missile messing up their life.

Moreover, (E)ntrepreneurs rarely have the patience to talk about boring problems of implementation, the how dimension. They spend most of their time talking about why something needs to be done. (E)s see the whole landscape from above, and not necessarily any of the details.

The Native Americans have totemic symbols for people that describe their styles. When a warrior was called Big Eagle, this was a way of describing what we are calling an (E) style. He soared through the sky with a spectacular view of the horizon, but his feet were not on the ground. He lacked a full sense of reality.

The Native Americans would have called the (A) style a buffalo—very slow and heavy, but once it decides to charge, watch out! The buffalo doesn’t change direction easily. It would probably run you over first. Now, just imagine an eagle and a buffalo trying to charge together. It would be very difficult, wouldn’t it?

What happens when (A)s try to talk to (E)s?

A)s call ahead and schedule appointments which (E)s usually change or miss. When they finally meet, (A)s discuss so many details that it deeply annoys the (E)s. If you ask (A)dministrators about a problem, they usually start by explaining the past. They tell you how the prob- lem evolved, as if you wouldn’t understand the problem without knowing its history. (A)s always seem to start with Adam and Eve. After two hours, they’re only up to the Renaissance. You have to meet for another four hours before finally hearing about the present time.

(E)s and (P)s, on the other hand, have the attention span of a squirrel. Finally the (E)s will say enough history, what’s the solution? The (A)s, with a two-thousand-year view of the problem, will claim that it will take how long to solve it?

Another two thousand years!

It’s called analysis paralysis. Bureaucrats suffer from it.

The (E)s have a totally different time frame. They don’t like looking at the past. For (E)ntre- preneurs, the past is dead. They are looking to the future. They’re eagles flying high in the sky, looking beyond the horizon. They see opportunities, and they have difficulty communicating what they see because although they can sense it, the details are not yet clear. If you ask them to describe it in detail, they will still describe it in generalities.

Furthermore, (E)s dislike talking about problems. Their answer to a problem is, “It’s your re- sponsibility.” (E)s focus on opportunities while, for an (A), those opportunities are problems.

Aren’t (E)s concerned with why problems exist?

No. They prefer to focus on opportunities. Problems drain them of energy.

What about the solution?

When you ask (E)s for a solution, they usually get upset. They feel the opportunities they foresee should have been dealt with already. That’s why it’s usually uncomfortable working with (E)s; they get upset easily. What they don’t realize is that they’re flying at high altitude. The (A) is not moving. He has more and more questions and doubts that rain on (E)’s parade.

The (E)s will usually run out of the room in the middle of the discussion. They just can’t stand all the details. The (A)s feel ignored, abused, and abandoned. They feel they are working for sea gulls, which appear from above, let out a shriek, drop a shot on your boat, and disappear.

What about the other extreme, the case of (P)s communicating with (I)s? Task-oriented, fast-moving (P)s are usually not very personal or sensitive. This upsets the (I)ntegrators, who want to slow down and pay attention to people. They will usually accuse the (P)s of being hatchet men, insensitive and macho. The (P)s, on the other hand, think (I)s are too weak and too slow.

We should be even more conscious of how we deal with subordinates because we usually take lightly those we believe we can control.

It doesn’t sound as though these two get along any better than the (A)s and the (E)s.

They don’t, and they don’t necessarily like each other, either. Each thinks the other is insensitive: (P)s think (I)s are insensi- tive to what the organization needs, while (I)s think the (P)s are insensitive to how people feel.

That can create hard feelings and a lack of mutual respect between the two types. What about the (E)s and (P)s?

(P)s and (E) also do not understand each other well. (E) might think aloud something that a (P) will interpret as a decision and start moving to implement although no decision was made. Those (P)s—who would be called rodents in the Native American totem—are so close to the ground they can’t see beyond their whiskers. They don’t understand what the (E) is talking about. They don’t share the vision.

I understand the nature of these conflicts, but what do we do about them?

What you need is to be able to sell your ideas to people who are different from you.

Great how?

Many books have been written about how to lead employees from the top down. What is needed is bottom-up leadership. We are not talking about communicating only with a boss. The Adizes Methodology pertains to communicating with peers and employees as well. In fact, when communicating with employees the methodology is more difficult to use because we usually ignore an employee’s style. That is a mistake. We need staff cooperation in collaborative decision making no less than we need the boss’s cooperation. We should be even more conscious of how we deal with subordinates because we usually take lightly those we believe we can control. Some people make this mistake with their spouse or children, treat- ing them with less respect than they would grant a stranger.

Start thinking about how to communicate with people in general. Think of people as if each one were your boss. This means you will have to sell your ideas without using authority or power, just your influence.

How do I do that? You say I should try to talk to people in their own language, but first I have to know who they are. How can I find out whether people are (P)s, (A)s, (E)s, or (I)s before I talk to them?

To make a decision, all the (PAEI) roles must be performed, so people naturally move to perform a missing role.

We have a test, the Management Style Indicator, available from the Adizes Institute, but you can’t refuse to talk to people until they submit to psychological tests.

But if you don’t know someone very well or have never met her before, what do you do?

Ask her what job she performs. If people are in marketing, expect them to be (E)ntrepreneurial. If they are in sales, they may be more of the (P)roducer type. If they’re in ac- counting, they may have an (A)dministrative orientation. Look at their jobs; try to assess their behavior, then verify Simplify life so that your assessment. Ask them how they like their jobs, what we can deal with its they like and do not like. Look at their offices. Look at their complexities. desk, clothes, posture, and energy. Be sensitive to them. It’s not as important to quantify personality traits as it is to be conscious of whether they understand you or not. Then adapt your style so that you can communicate clearly.

Also, watch for this phenomenon: If two (E)s get together the one who is a stronger (E) might take on the (P) style as well, while the other (E) might assume the (A) and (I) styles.

Why?

To make a decision, all the (PAEI) roles must be performed, so people naturally move to perform a missing role, although it is not their natural strength. Natural inclinations are only a starting point. The environment, the nature of the task, and the other people involved have a large impact on what style a person exhibits. So don’t be so fast to brand people. Observe them, listen and feel, and use the tools from these conversations plus your own intuition.

This is complicated.

Right. Life is not simple. All we are trying to do in these conversations is simplify life so that we can deal with its complexities. For example, to assess someone’s style in a job interview I use the following system: I tell the candidate to ask me ten questions. I tell them that I will answer them all to her satisfaction. To be sure she asks everything she needs to know, if I offer her the job she has to decide on the spot whether to accept or to reject my offer. As she asks her questions I can analyze whether the question is (P), (A), (E), or (I) question. For instance, if she asks about the goals of your company, what do you think her style is?

That is (E).

If she asks, “What exactly am I supposed to do?”

That is a (P) question.

If she asks about salary and fringe benefits?

(A).

The questions reveal the person’s needs and thus her personality style. It is not a precise, scientific system, but as a rule of thumb it works.

Once you’ve figured out someone’s style, what do you do with that information? What would you do when talking to a (P), for example?

(P)s are quick decision makers. They behave as if they don’t have a lot of time. They’re usually under pressure to deal with a crisis, so they must focus on results.

Let me ask you a question: If your boss were a (P) and you said, “I need three hours to discuss a problem with you.” What would he say?

“Three hours? Sure, how about in ten years? Maybe by then I’ll be able to find my desk!”

How much time can you request realistically?

Five or ten minutes, maybe fifteen at the very most.

When talking with (P)s try to be short. Start with the end of your argument, with your conclusion. Give a (P) the bottom line, because that’s all he has time for. You can supply the support materials and answer any questions later.

What do you do if the person is a Lone Ranger, not just a (P)roducer?

Tell him it’s a crisis. For the Lone Ranger that’s a legitimate reason to give you time. You should say, “We have a crisis. We must deal with it immediately. I’m already applying the solution. I just need your approval.”

Why would that work?

If you don’t say you’re under time pressure or that you’re in the middle of implementing a solution, what will the Lone Ranger say?

“Put it on my desk.”

The (A) will be precisely wrong. She runs a wellcontrolled disaster.

Then the problem will sit there with a hundred other problems, while you’re stuck with no solution. Lone Rangers aren’t going to delegate to you, so you have to take initiative yourself. You have to legitimate what you do. With Lone Rangers the problem must be a crisis, there must be time pressure, and you must take initiative to solve it, or it will not be dealt with in a reasonable amount of time.

Now, will the same approach work with (A)dministrators? If you call an (A) and say, “We have a crisis and I’m already implementing the solution, I just need your blessing,” what do you think would happen?

You’d be fired.

Transform your organization's culture to foster collaboration, engagement, and high-performance teams.

An (A) would say, “Who gave you the right to start implementing a solution? How dare you proceed with implementation without getting approval?” The (A) will be precisely wrong. She runs a well-controlled disaster. Don’t you take initiative until you get the (A)’s approval, even if the company is sinking.

If you are a (P) working for a Bureaucrat, you’ve probably made this mistake. You’ve probably had a crisis and solved it. When you went to your boss to get his blessing, you expected praise but you got quite a surprise instead. The fact is, you applied a (P) solution, and the (A) didn’t appreciate it at all.

What is the correct procedure with (A)s?

(A)dministrators, or Bureaucrats, depending on how extreme their style is, are more interested in how than what. Their style is slow and structured, with a focus on process. You have to fit your style to their style, so you must pay close attention to form above function. The first thing you must do is schedule an appointment. (A)s don’t appreciate surprises. If you do pop in unexpectedly, they won’t listen to you for the first half hour. They’re upset because you caught them unprepared or because you came unprepared. Tell them in advance what the meeting is about so that they can get ready for you. Next, you have to use what I call a coefficient of error.

What’s that?

(E)s and (P)s move quickly; (A)s and (I)s move slowly. They have different concepts of time. For instance, my style is (E), and I have found that my coefficient of error is six. This means that if I tell my staff they can do something in one hour, it will really take six hours. If I tell them we can do it in a week how long will it actually take?

Six weeks.

You see, for me as an eagle flying in the sky, one beat of my wings takes me a long distance with relative ease. However, those down on the ground have to run up and down hills and canyons to travel the same distance. Following my small movements from below is extremely difficult. But being an eagle up in the air, I might ignore the difference, which would cause an error in my expectations.

So before an (E) calls an (A) and says, “I need to meet with you for half an hour,” the (E) should think about his coefficient of error. If it is six, like mine, the (E) should say, “I need a half-hour meeting with you, but knowing me we had better schedule three hours.” What the (A) doesn’t want is to schedule a half-hour meeting that ends up taking three hours. The (E) must ask for three hours and tell the (A) what the agenda will be. No surprises.

Next, if you are an (E) or (P) talking to an (A) or (I), I suggest you learn to slow down.

Slow down?

(E)s constantly run out of breath. Their mind moves faster than their lips. In Mexico they say the first one who stops talking to take a breath loses the argument.

I have noticed in countries with an (E) culture it seems as though everyone talks at the same time. How do you suggest learning to slow down?

Say you are an (E) or a (P) dealing with an (A). You arranged for a three-hour meeting and told the (A) what you’d be discussing. Start by slowing down as you walk to the meeting. Take a deep breath. When you arrive, you should have slowed down to the (A)’s speed. For every one of your ideas, the (A) will think of many, many repercussions. The (A) needs time to process your information. If you don’t slow down in the corridor, do it during the first few minutes of the session.

In modern society, the (E) style that causes us to rush and the (P) pressures to perform cause people to run around breathless. Slow down! Start a meeting with a relaxation response: close your eyes and breathe deeply. Relax for a few seconds. This idea comes from Dr. Herbert Benson of the Harvard Medical School.

I know his work. But he recommends the relaxation response to avoid the undesirable effects of stress.

Stress and good decision making don’t get along. The more relaxed you are the better your decision will be because you’ll be more aware of what your body is telling you.

What my body is telling me?

Stress and good decision making don’t get along.

Think and analyze, but in the end, listen to your intuition by listening to your body.

A body is a data warehouse where you store your experiences. Don’t we say, “I have a gut feeling,” or “This problem is giving me a headache,” or “This situation is making me tense?” Don’t you ache after a stressful meeting? Your body was storing the experience. Next time, when you have a similar problem, your body will react to the experience with a gut feeling, a headache, or tension. Your body is communicating your past experiences. Pay attention to your body, respect it, and trust it. You have made a good decision only when your body feels relaxed. If you are tense, if it doesn’t “smell good,” if it “feels rotten,” even if all the numbers and experts indicate that you should do something, what should you do?

Don’t do it.

Think and analyze, but in the end, listen to your intuition by listening to your body. You can also communicate better by watching the body language of the people you are talking to. Watch their eyes, eyebrows, and hand movements, and synchronize what they say with how they say it. You can’t do that if you are preoccupied with your own pains.

If the parties in a meeting are relaxed, they communicate and understand each other better than if they are in pain; so slow down to get a fast result!

I understand, although I believe I am going to look weird next time I start a meeting with “Ladies and gentlemen, please take a deep breath and relax!”

You will get a weird reaction the first time around. Next time, they will ask for it. Try it.

What else should I remember when communicating with (A)s?

Go to the agenda and start with the first item, and watch the (A)’s eyes. This is very important. The moment her eyes go wandering, the (A) is thinking about the repercussions of your idea. Stop talking. I know this is very difficult for an (E), but you must wait for the (A) to finish processing the information. Wait for the (A) to return from her wanderings.

What should I do in the meantime? Just sit there?

(E)s often think (A)s are denying heavenly light because they can’t find a candle.

You have to understand together the what and why before addressing the how.

If you are an (E), you usually have many other ideas you want to present. While the (A) is thinking, you could make a list of those ideas. You should always have a pad of paper and a pen while in a meeting. If you don’t write those ideas down, you’ll worry that you might forget them later, causing you to keep talking when you should be quiet. If you know that you can find those ideas any time, you won’t feel so hard-pressed to say everything at once and send the poor (A) into a daze.

When the (A) comes back from her deep thoughts, won’t she have questions?

The questions will most likely be about implementation. An (E) will probably get upset and think, “I can’t believe this. I am trying to make millions of dollars and this person is bugging me about insignificant details.” (E)s often think (A)s are denying heavenly light because they can’t find a candle.

Yes, this can drive (E)s insane.

First, don’t get upset. Do not resist a stylistic difference, instead learn to recognize it and accept it. Then you can deal with it. What you should do is acknowledge the question. Maybe you could write it on a flip chart, so the (A) can see that you are not ignoring the question. Say, “After we finish the report we’ll address all the questions in detail. If you have any more questions, please write them down.” This way you are acknowledging the (A)’s concerns, yet you don’t get sidetracked. Acknowledge all the questions but don’t discuss them in that moment. Once you have finished presenting the big picture, summarize and say, “Now let’s look at the questions.” In other words, you have to understand together the what and why before addressing the how.

As you discuss the questions, you might find that the (A) was right to raise them. Some ques- tions about implementation can justifiably negate your wonderful idea. But you should not discuss the how until you have jointly understood the what and the why. You can’t start with what not until you jointly understand what yes. You can’t all talk about cost until you all understand the value.

Cost does not exist in a vacuum, it is relative to value.

How long should you stay in a meeting with an (A)?

You can’t talk about the cost until you all understand the value. Stay only the length of time you agreed upon. Don’t say, “Ten more minutes.” First, there is a good chance it’s not going to be just ten minutes but more like half an hour. By that time the (A) will be furious. He has a schedule to live by. If you cannot finish in ten minutes, you will have to rush, and the worst mistakes in judgment are usually made in the last ten minutes of an extended meeting when people rush and are stressed.

But the (E) won’t like this procedure. Asking them to stop on time is like asking a fish to fly.

Some fish do fly, and some birds dive under water. I’m not asking you to do what you like to do, but what you need to do. Do you think the bird goes under water for fun? It’s going to feed. Being a leader requires selling ideas to others. You know how difficult it is to sell your own ideas to yourself; imagine how much more difficult it is to sell them to others.

The worst mistakes in judgment are usually made in the last ten minutes of an extended meeting.

Are there other considerations when you deal with an (A)?

Yes, many. This conversation is just a start. For instance, to (E)s num- bers don’t have to be exact; they’re only a way to express a degree of magnitude. An (E) might say, “We sold a million,” when the fact is we sold somewhere between half a million and one and a half million. But for (A)s, 999,999 is not a million. That’s why (A) s usually don’t trust (E)s, and often (E)s get accused of lying. (E)s must be careful not to confuse ideas with facts because (A)s take people literally. When (A)s catch you in a mistake, no matter how small, they no longer trust anything you say.

Enough about (A)s. I don’t really like them anyway.

Watch your attitude. They’ll keep you out of trouble. The bigger the (E) is in your (PAEI) code, the more (A) you should seek out. Success is a complementary team based on mutual respect. That means accepting each other’s styles as legitimate.

You’re right. I have to remember that this is work, not a social club. Now, how do you handle (E)s?

(E)s must be careful not to confuse ideas with facts.

We already know (E)s resist any idea unless it is theirs. Before meeting with an (E), you have to think about how to make your idea appear to be the (E)’s idea. Can you walk in and say to an (E), “Here is problem X, the solution should be Y. I’ve worked it out to the last detail, I’m just asking for your approval.” That’s how you succeeded with the (A) style. Is (E) going to like that?

No. In fact, the (E) would probably say you have the wrong problem and wrong solution.

Looking for a hole in your reasoning, the (E) will attack the diagnosis. The (E) will try to find out what’s wrong in an effort to put her own stamp on the solution. Finalized plans, in which there is nothing left for the (E) to contribute, will not be acceptable.

For an (E), the (A) approach means you are taking charge and leaving her behind. You’re ignoring her by not consulting with her. She feels disrespected, and will find a way to put you in your place sooner or later. If you ignore her, she is going to make you notice her, and notice her in a big way.

Then how should I approach (E)s?

Don’t ever go to them with a “final” solution to a problem. Don’t ever expect them to simply agree with you. You must leave the whole issue open ended, using phrases like: “May I sug- gest. . . I’ve been thinking. . . It appears that. . . What do you think?” Let them put their stamp on your idea. You should treat all (E) people like this, not only your (E) boss. I’m also talking about dealing with employees who are (E)s. They’ll hate you telling them what to do, how to do it, and when you want it done. Why? Because you’re not letting them use their brain. The (E)s want to contribute and you won’t let them use their creativity. Talk to them in their own language. Ask them what they think, what they suggest, how they can help improve this. Enlist them so that they will own the idea.

How do you deal with (I)s? What are (I)ntegrators or, in extreme cases, Super Followers or Soaped Fish, looking for?

Why don’t you try to answer that?

They’re looking for agreement and political consensus.

If you tell an (I), “The problem is this and the solution is that. We want your approval,” what will he say? “It’s not time yet. We’re not ready. Have you talked to Rudy? Have you talked to Paul? Have you talked to Denise?”

Different people motivate, organize, and discipline differently. You must pay attention to the differences.

An (I)ntegrator is going to ask questions to assess the political climate—the degree of consensus already available. So, before you go to the (I)ntegrator you have to get all the necessary people to buy into your idea. You have to talk to Rudy and Paul and Denise to find out where they stand. You have to (I)ntegrate them first. Then say to the (I)ntegrator, “We have a problem. All of us have discussed it. We agree on the solution, and we want your approval.” The (I) will immediately ask, “What about Joe?” If you didn’t talk to Joe, who is apparently important on the political map, the (I)ntegrator will say, “I don’t think we’re ready yet.” But if you can say, “We talked to Joe and he is totally behind it,” (I)ntegrator will say, “What are we waiting for? Let’s go!”

Before giving their blessing, (I)ntegrators will go down the list of important people to make sure everyone is behind an idea. They understand capi intuitively.

What happens if I misread the person I’m talking to?

Your strategy will backfire. Just imagine you’re an (I) talking to an (E) boss, and you treat him as another (I). All your life you have tried to resolve conflicts and be sensitive to people. You talk to all the people affected by the problem or the solution. You resolve all the conflicts and integrate everyone. Then you go to your (E) boss and say, “We had this problem. We all met and agreed what the problem is, and we all agreed on the solution. We just want your agreement on it.” What do you think? How will the (E) boss react?

She would probably sweat, thinking, “My God! There’s been a coup d’état behind my back. No one told me about the problem, they just got together and caucused against me. They have a solution and now they are backing me into a corner to approve it.” The (E) will look for the first opportunity to fire the (I).

Traditional management theory virtually ignores differences in style. Different people mo- tivate, organize, and discipline differently. You must pay attention to the differences. You must deal with people according to their styles. (P)s plan differently from (A)s, (E)s, or (I)s. Everyone has a different way of looking at the world, and that’s why everyone wants to be treated differently. This has implications for designing reward systems, hiring and pro- moting people, evaluating performances, how we treat our children, and how we should treat our spouse. It impacts how we should treat each other, period.

Differences in communication styles have implications for advertising as well. One way to look at market segmentation is through demographics: education, sex, geographical location, and so forth. Another way to look at it, I suggest, is through personality traits. This (PAEI) methodology has been used by many advertising agencies to appeal to different peo- ple in different ways. Take a car, for example. The (P)roducing types look for the functional- ity of a product, so advertising directed at (P)s should focus on gas mileage, legroom, trunk space, and seating capacity.

Advertising aimed at (A)s should stress the warranty, repair record, and resale value, but for (E)s, facts like resale value and gas mileage are boring. (E)s probably look at what the car symbolizes. Sex appeal attracts the (E)’s attention, why else would anyone pay a hundred thousand dollars for a Ferrari? It’s very difficult to sit inside one, and you can’t drive 150 miles an hour in the city, but the idea of a sexy car and what it communicates to others is its main appeal for an (E). The car is a means to achieve the goals of the (E)’s fruitful imagination, not just a means of transportation as it is for a (P) or a good return on investment like it is for an (A). That’s why when selling to (E)s, the colors, music, and images are very important. Sometimes it’s difficult even to identify the product. The total image is being sold.

This explains something: Creative directors in advertising agencies are usually (E)s so they create advertisements they like. If they present such ideas to the vice presidents of an aging organization who are (A)s, they’ll be kicked out mid-presentation.

Smart account executives in advertising have to know how to differentiate between clients and customers, the end users.

What about selling to (I)s?

A detailed elaboration on this subject can be found in Adizes, Leading the Leaders.

To (I)s you’re selling the affiliation. The advertisements for Rolex watches are a good example. The ad refers constantly to the fact that world leaders wear the watches. The message is that if you want to be identified with these people, you should wear the same watch. It’s a symbol of belonging.

Interesting that (I) type of advertising comes from Switzerland. If Switzerland had no (I) and (A) it would not survive, with Italians, French and Germans all in one country.

Good advertising campaigns have messages hitting all four (PAEI) market segments, or four separate campaigns aimed at the different segments.

Would you summarize all this?

To communicate successfully requires skill because different people understand the same words differently. They also have different needs to be satisfied. You must pay attention to those styles and needs if you want to sell your ideas. Wait a minute! There’s a complication here. Nobody is ever a perfect or exclusive type. We behave differently under different conditions or when interacting with different people. It seems as if we have multiple (PAEI) styles, not one. What then?

Whenever people are tired or upset they usually start behaving in their own style and ignore the style of the people they’re talking to.

You must be sensitive. Try one approach, and if you are not being understood, try another approach. You should always keep your eye on the people to whom you are selling ideas, and adapt and change your style until your audience fully understands. Every leader must speak the four (PAEI) “languages” to some de- gree if he wants to communicate well. That’s why good managers must have well-rounded styles, and why traveling abroad and getting to know different cultures is an important part of a person’s education.

Now I feel as though I can never relax. I’ll have to watch the person I’m speaking to and how I’m speaking. This makes me tense.

Luckily, you don’t have to do it all the time—only when there is conflict or when you don’t easily understand another person.

The problem is that is when I’m least able to watch my style and adapt it to the other person.

Yes. Whenever people are tired or upset they usually start behaving in their own style and ignore the style of the people they’re talking to.

So when people attend important meetings it’s extremely important that they be relaxed and well rested?

Some people even meditate and fast before crucial meetings.

Are you serious?

There are also times when people should stop a meeting altogether and reschedule it. When? When you’re heading toward a breakdown. Let’s say you’re very familiar with the workings of a certain machine, such as your car. You know the normal humming sound the engine makes, and if someone unfamiliar with your car asks what that noise is, you can say, oh, it’s normal. Once you know what a normal noise is, you can identify noises that aren’t normal and could indicate a breakdown. What should you do when you hear such noises?

Stop the engine immediately.

Absolutely. The same is true in personal relationships. Sometimes a conflict is normal and nothing to worry about. It may even be music to your ears because you know you are both learning. It’s pain with gain! But when you hear abnormal noise, you intervene.

How do you know what is normal and abnormal in conflicts?

Each of the (PAEI) styles has a typical abnormal noise, called backup behavior. It appears when people aren’t listening to or learning from each other anymore. It usually starts when people feel intimidated and fear they are losing control.

I bet it begins when they start losing trust and respect.

Yes, and the danger is that if they don’t stop the discussion it will be like a machine breaking down. It will keep sputtering until major, and sometimes irreparable, damage is done. What is breaking down is Mutual Trust and Respect.

What are those typical backup behavior patterns?

When (P)s feel they are losing control, they become little dictators. They proclaim, “That’s it. I’ve heard enough! Here is what we’re going to do and that’s it!”

(A)s usually freeze. They become very quiet. Their jaws lock. They don’t look at you, but through you. They ignore you and pursue their own agenda. In Hebrew there is a military expression that describes this behavior: the dogs are barking; the convoy keeps moving.

What is backup behavior for (I)s?

They yield. “Oh, that’s what you mean? No problem. Fine. Don’t worry.”

You are right. When my wife, who is an (I), says never mind, I’d better start to mind. There is trouble brewing in my marriage.

(I)s sway with the wind, especially when it’s blowing hard, but they do not mean it. Like the tree that bends in the wind but straightens itself back up when the wind stops, so does the (I). He seems to agree, only later you find out that nothing really has changed.

The most dangerous backup behavior is that of (E)s.

I know: They attack. They go for the throat. They cut you to pieces and destroy your self-respect by publicly demeaning you. That is my boss.

Then they forget the whole thing. They kill you, and the next morning act as if nothing happened.

But (A)s never forget. They keep a detailed diary in their minds, and sometimes on paper.

This sort of conflict occurs in many marriages. (E)s marry (A)s because they are complementary. Traditionally the (E) is the male and the (A) is the female. He attacks her, and she withstands it silently while mentally cataloging it. Years later, when she wants a divorce, he falls to pieces because he doesn’t have a clue what happened or why. Then she reminds him what happened on that infamous afternoon ten years ago. He is shocked because he has very little memory of the fight. He hardly remembers what he had for breakfast, much less what happened ten years ago. But (A)s do not forget and do not forgive easily.

You just explained something very painful for me. A big (E) easily reverts to backup behavior and shows displeasure easily. The other person, an (A), closes down because she feels threatened. When (A)s do that the (E) feels ignored, which is the worst thing that can happen to an (E), and gets furious. That causes him to escalate his attack, and the more he attacks, the more she closes down. He is falling apart while she freezes her emotions.

Right! She is in as much pain as you, only she shows it differently.

What should we do?

Talent alone does not make for success. To produce results, the more talent you have, the more self-discipline you must have.

Whoever is more in control of his or her emotions, even by a little bit, has to stop the discussion the instant backup behavior is sensed. You should not resume the discussion too soon, either. What did you do with the machine that sounded as if it were breaking down? You stopped it. Should you just start it up again?

No. You should check the source of the breakdown first.

The same holds for personal conflict. After you have stopped the discussion and cooled off, you should find out what caused the other party to feel threatened. Clear up that issue before continuing the discussion.

When you notice backup behavior in a heated business meeting, say something like, “Let’s discuss it tomorrow. I hear you and I want to give you the full attention you deserve. I am too emotional right now.” Refuse to continue the discussion. (P)s and (E)s will get upset and insist the problem be resolved. They hate pain and want to get it over with. When they hear abnormal noise, they don’t slow the machine down, they speed it up. Don’t get sucked in. Stop the discussion. The next day start off by asking, “What happened yesterday that upset you?” Try to find out what it was. Only when that issue is resolved should you restart the machine and go back to discussing the issue you were dealing with.

This requires a lot of self-discipline. Right.

Talent alone does not make for success. To produce results, the more talent you have, the more self-discipline you must have or you will burn out in no time.

And self-discipline alone is barren. Absolutely. You need both talent and self-discipline. Analyze the people who have been suc- cessful in any field—sports, arts, business, politics—and you will find equal amounts of talent and self-discipline.