September 25, 2025 • 31 mins
Have you ever wondered why your carefully worded suggestions get ignored, or why someone thought you were angry when you were simply being clear? The answer might lie in your influence style.
In this illuminating episode, Ken and Patti Leith delve into the third component of their Interface Methods collaboration tool: influence styles. Building on previous discussions about detail orientation and information processing, they explore the fascinating dynamic between direct and cautious communicators.
Direct communicators speak succinctly, state facts plainly, and get straight to the point. Cautious communicators use qualifying words (might, maybe, possibly), provide context, and emphasize diplomacy. While neither style is inherently better, these differences essentially create two different languages, even when both parties are speaking English.
Through engaging stories and relatable examples, Ken and Patti demonstrate how these communication differences lead to misunderstandings in both professional and personal settings. A cautious boss saying "you might want to consider waiting" might intend a firm directive, while the direct employee hears merely an optional suggestion. Similarly, when a direct person makes a straightforward statement, a cautious receiver often perceives more intensity or frustration than was ever intended.
What makes this challenge particularly difficult is that while we can adapt how we speak relatively easily, it's much harder to change how we hear and interpret others' communication. This places more responsibility on the message sender to adapt their delivery style to match the receiver's preference.
The good news? These differences are behavioral, not personality-based, which means they can be recognized and adapted to with practice. By spotting these differences and willingly adapting our approach, we can dramatically improve our connections with others.
Whether in the workplace, at home, or in community involvement, understanding these influence styles can transform our relationships. Join us to discover how to bridge these communication gaps and connect more effectively with everyone in your life.
Share this episode with someone you think could benefit from understanding these communication differences, and subscribe to catch our exciting plans for the upcoming year!
Follow and stay connected:
Website: fourbarspodcast.com
YouTube: youtube.com/@FourBarsPodcast
Instagram: @edges_Inc
Facebook: EDGES Inc.
LinkedIn: EDGES Inc.
Never miss an update—follow, subscribe, and join the conversation!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the 4 Bars podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
I'm Ken Leith and I'm Patti Leith.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
We're your hosts for some compelling dialogue,
encouraging our listeners tostrengthen their connections and
build strong communities,lifting each other up and
connecting in ways that matter.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
We named the podcast 4 Bars as a reference to how
hard we work to find a 4 Barsconnection on our devices.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
And we wondered what could happen with relationships
if we worked as hard atconnecting.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Let's find out.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Hi, welcome back to Four Bars.
We're glad to have you.
I'm one of your hosts, KenLeith, and with me I have.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
I'm Patti Leith, a co-host, and we are doing this
episode on our own.
It's only the fourth one we'vedone in this way.
We're kind of celebrating ayear of doing these podcasts, so
that's kind of a cool milestone.
We're seeing our viewershipgrow, we're seeing our listeners
grow and we're going toencourage you to share this
podcast with at least one otherperson and think about following
(00:54):
and subscribing, as you do.
We are going to spend a littlebit of time continuing our
dialogue about collaboration,because we think that
collaboration is a really bigpart of what builds community,
and in today's episode, we'regoing to explore a key element
inside of collaboration and thatis influence.
(01:15):
So previously we have spent alittle time telling you about
our collaboration tool, and Ithink that we mentioned in
episode 13 that that toolhighlights the differences in
three different areas.
So I think that we mentioned inepisode 13 that that tool
highlights the differences inthree different areas.
So I'm going to revisit thoseand, if you're interested, go
back and check out episode 13and episode 19.
In episode 13, we talked aboutthe fact that when we are
(01:38):
working or processing things inour personal environment, we
have a tendency to want acertain level of detail and when
that certain level of detail isdifferent from the person we're
working with, married to,living with, corresponding with,
we sometimes have some friction.
This is a predominant part ofany collaborative effort is to
(02:02):
recognize this difference and tomove ahead.
We call that a changing leaf,that's a big picture person who
wants to think about theoutcomes and then follow up with
the details.
Or an evergreen, that's adetail-oriented person who wants
to start with the details andwork up to the outcome.
We approach work differentlyand yet both of our approaches
are very necessary for the workto be good.
(02:24):
And again, this is not just atwork, it's also at home and at
church and at our civic groups.
In episode 19, we took a lookat how we process information.
Ken, you want to talk aboutthat?
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Yes.
So when we think aboutprocessing information, how do
we take something from an ideato a reality?
How do we move it forward,advance it?
Some people think about it asgoing from zero to 60.
So when we think about thatinformation that we process, we
do that either internally, wherewe like to think it through.
We want to consider all thevariables internally, think it
(02:57):
through, do a little research ifwe want, but we do that alone,
generally speaking, and we feelmost comfortable doing that.
Again, it's not that we can'tverbalize it, it's just that we
feel more comfortable that way.
The flip side of that issomeone who wants to do it
externally.
So if you think about someonewho may be walking around the
office, who talks to peopleperiodically and they do that
(03:18):
that might be someone who'sworking through a project or a
challenge that they're havingand each time they are speaking
to someone they're gatheringanother piece of data, they are
grabbing a piece of the puzzleto help them solve it.
So, conversely to the personwho did it internally, they are
going to engage people andthey're getting moved towards
their solution by being able tohave that dialogue.
Again, neither is right orwrong.
(03:40):
Both can be effective.
Sometimes there are someopportunities where or not
opportunities?
I'll say sometimes it can beeffective.
Sometimes there are someopportunities where or not
opportunities?
I'll say sometimes it can be toyour term friction.
That occurs Because if I'msomeone who's thinking about it
and just talking to people or,excuse me, thinking about it
internally, then what can happenthere is.
Other people might not knowthat I'm spending time thinking
(04:00):
about that.
I'm connected to somethingmaybe the team is working on, so
they may wonder why I'minvolved in a meeting.
Yeah, conversely, if I'm aninternal processor and I'm
working with someone who's anexternal processor and they come
by and they tell me one day I'mtalking to them, I take
something and then they go away,I might think that, oh, we've
(04:21):
landed on a solution, butthey're still collecting pieces
of the puzzle.
So I might judge them a littlebit.
It's like, are they flighty?
Are they someone who can't makea decision?
Because I thought we made adecision.
In essence, it's just sometimesthe communication.
In that scenario, they say I'mjust thinking about it or
working through it.
I'm not yet complete on that.
Let me finish that and I'llcome back to you.
Yeah, so again, just anothermethod behavior.
(04:44):
There's not a right or wrong tothis, and that's the beauty of
it.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Yeah, yeah, and I'm going to point out that in the
description Ken just gave ofwhat we covered in episode 19
and the description I gave, youcan see that Ken is more detail
oriented than I am.
He shared a little more, butyou can learn a lot about both
of these characteristics and howthey play out in our
relationships.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
If you look back on the previous episode, absolutely
, and if you do, one of theother things is that the tool
we're talking about is ourinterface methods tool.
So it's one that's been aroundfor many years now and in many
iterations of that.
So when customers use it, theyuse it.
I'm just going to talk aboutthat for a second.
They use it anywhere frombringing a group together to
work on strategy Maybe it'stheir executive team or maybe
(05:30):
it's groups within theirorganization and they try to get
teams that have people who doit differently Because, think
about it, if it's all people whoare process oriented, those
linear thinkers, then they'regoing to do a really great job
of creating the process andmaking sure the detail's there.
But they may have a challengewith pushing the ideation and
(05:51):
the innovation of it.
So their risk there may belosing market share because
they're not innovative.
On the other side of that isthose people who are thinking
about things and working throughit on the team who are big
picture thinkers.
They are really good at pushingus the envelope and asking why
can't we do something differentmore, which is great but if they
(06:13):
are not supported by thoseother thinkers, they might not
have the process that's reallyaccurate, that's detailed enough
for people to go execute.
So then you could lose marketshare and opportunities there.
But together, working together,creates really really powerful
force and really productive work.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Yeah.
So today we're going to tackleinfluence and collaboration, and
there is one element that'smeasured on the interface
methods tool that tells us whatour preference is when we're
influencing and collaborating.
The beautiful thing about theinterface methods tool is it's
behavioral.
So when I spot a difference, Ican do three things I can not
(06:53):
judge and I can willfully adapt,and then, in doing so, I can
connect better with the personthat I'm talking with.
That's different from apersonality tool, which is
harder to change, right.
So our research showed thatthere were these three things
that really mattered when peoplewere communicating.
And when we're different, ourother choice is to judge and to
(07:17):
disconnect, right.
So I guess we really have fivechoices.
But really, what you want to dois you want to recognize the
difference, not judge thatdifference, and then plan a good
, strong connection for thatperson.
So we'll talk today about onethat really is.
You have to recognize and be.
(07:39):
It's very easy to recognize,but it's important to be really
intentional about youradaptation, and that's influence
and collaboration.
Influence is something that isnecessary from everything in
your life from talking to yourkids, trying to convince your
husband you need to get anotherpuppy which, by the way.
(08:01):
Maybe I'm not a good person totalk about influence, because
I've not been able to convincehim of that, but I'm continuing
to work on it.
So check back with me on thatone.
To you know, trying to makesure that the contractor working
on your home or your landlordwho's supposed to fix something
in your living space is doingwhat you need for them to do.
(08:21):
It's also a skill that isheavily utilized in our civic
exchanges and in our workspace,and when we do it differently,
we have a tendency to judge theother person.
So I'm going to tell you thatthose two methods on a continuum
between really strong andsomewhere in the middle, and
(08:42):
then really strong again, arevery direct and very cautious,
and we can kind of be somewherein the middle.
But the reality of it is thatwhen I am a direct influencer,
my language, the words that Ichoose, the things that come
into my head and then quicklyget moved out into the world by
my mouth, are different fromsomebody who is more cautious.
(09:05):
The cautious person's language,again, what comes into their
head and what they say withoutthinking about it, is different,
and when we use these differentlanguages we have a hard time
hearing the other person.
So direct and cautious are veryeasy to spot because it's you
know, a direct person is prettyupfront, pretty succinct, pretty
(09:26):
cut and dry, and a cautiousperson is going to be more
diplomatic a little bit more can.
There's more qualifying wordsin the way that they say it.
But what happens is when I saymy direct thing to a cautious
person, it's more than what Imean it to be, and sometimes
that will cause them to checkout and if a cautious person
(09:49):
says their cautious thing to me,I might not hear it as what
they mean, I might only hear itas a suggestion.
And so exploring this dynamicin your personal and your
professional lives and in yourcommunity work that you're a
part of it, is critical toreally kind of say, okay, how do
I communicate and why, butrecognize that I have the
(10:12):
ability to spot that yourpreference is different and I
can adapt.
Yes, so you want to share acouple of stories about this
difference.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
We've seen it a lot.
It plays out every day, everyday In everyday life, and I will
say that you can look for it inTV shows, like you totally can
look for it in TV shows.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
Agreed A hundred percent.
We've seen a lot of that.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
And if it's well written, it really scripts out
that difference.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Yes, so, yes, I will say that when you think about
these two differences here, itis something where we can really
easily start to.
Once we identify our method andunderstand how people who are
different utilize their abilityto influence, then we can adapt
(11:04):
our message point for them, andthat's one of the key things.
Before we end conversation ofstories about those, that's a
big deal for that one.
The other thing about thiscautious and direct difference
we'll talk a little bit todayabout what can you do to be able
to adapt?
What does adaptation look likewhen you're working with someone
else, so that, if you knowyou're working with someone
(11:24):
who's different in this area,you can actually prep your
interface for that meeting withthem in order to have the best
opportunity to influence them?
Speaker 2 (11:33):
yeah, absolutely, absolutely so.
So when, when a cautious personand you're more cautious than I
am I, and anybody who knows usknows this to be true.
Um, I'm going to be more direct.
We both have moved a little bittowards the middle in being
married to each other for almost20 years, in the years that
(11:54):
we've been together.
Right, I think it was much moresubstantially different 10
years ago, or even 20.
But the cautious person willchoose words that have more
diplomacy, and that usuallyincludes some qualifying words
like might, maybe, possiblythink about, could instead of
(12:21):
should, should, do now, right.
So the direct person is goingto say don't do that and the
cautious person is going to sayyou might want to think about
possibly considering not doingthat, and that's great.
If a cautious person says thatto a cautious person, what they
(12:42):
mean, which is don't do it, isgoing to come across to a
cautious person because they'respeaking the same language.
They use qualifying words totemper around what it is that
they're saying and they'respeaking the same language.
But if that cautious personsays that might want to consider
, possibly to a direct person,the direct person kind of shoos
(13:04):
it away like a fruit fly andsays, no, that's just a
suggestion.
You know, hold my beer, watchthis, I'm going to do it anyway,
right.
So the, so the, the language isnot the same.
When the direct person says tothe cautious person, don't do
that, it feels a littleoffensive, a little too strong,
(13:24):
a little bit like what do youmean?
And and in fact, if they saythat to a direct person because
they speak the same language, itwon't feel that way.
When that direct person makes areally succinct statement, the
cautious person reads it the waythey would want they would make
(13:45):
that statement if they were infact on their third try, right,
I'm frustrated.
So when I say to Ken no, don'tdo that.
He wouldn't say it that way tome until he had tried a few
other ways to say it, right.
And so what comes across isthat gee for her to say it that
(14:06):
way.
She's got to be reallyfrustrated when I am not at all.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
Right.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
And I don't mean you know, I don't mean it in a way
that is supposed to beoverbearing.
I don't mean it in anydifferent way than you would
mean it if you said you mightwant to consider holding off on
that, Right yeah, we weretalking today about my social
media and he was.
I was sharing something that Ihad read and he said you know,
(14:33):
you might want to think aboutdialing back that, because what
I had read was somewhatdisturbing, as a lot of it is
today, and what I heard from himwas this was it was a
suggestion, and what you meantwas don't be reading that stuff,
right?
Basically, yes.
And he's right, by the way.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
Yes, yeah, again, I think that as we think about
these differences, it issomething that, as we get better
with it and we actually knowsomeone else's differences and
where they are different from us, it's something also that
tempers some of that frictionyou might have there or that
thinking of oh, they're comingon, they're saying it very
(15:15):
succinctly, so they're upset themore you know that.
And I'll give you an example mylast CEO that I reported to in
corporate America before westarted working together, he was
a very direct person and atfirst it was like wow, he is
very, very direct.
And when our relationship wasfine but I kind of took some of
(15:37):
his stuff as everything he wouldsay was I need to go make sure
I do it now.
And I had to address it at ahigher level of urgency and I
didn't necessarily need to dothat.
But we organically, through ourworking together, started to
identify this difference in theway that that played out, and it
was one that sometimes he wouldactually, in his correspondence
(15:58):
, show his he'd come off verydirect in his correspondence,
which then, especially ifsomeone he was writing to was
cautious, that could lead themto down a path of wow, is he
just mad, right?
Speaker 2 (16:12):
What's the real point here?
Is he mad?
That's what?
Yes, yeah.
What level of frustrationexists for him to say it that
way?
And the answer is probably none, no.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
He was just a very direct person, but he was also
someone who had a lot of energy.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
And so he would sometimes write the same way and
it would come out where, again,people would be confused
Organically.
Somehow and I can't evenremember how it happened there
was something he was writing.
He asked me about it and I gavehim a little bit of feedback
that he wanted on that andbasically what I did was I
helped temper it to make surethat it was factual, which is
what direct people want to do.
(16:48):
They want to give the facts andbe done with that.
We want the next thing often,and so he was able to then take
that same correspondence, temperit a little bit, not
necessarily use cautious words,but remove some words that maybe
were a little bit oh OK, that'smaybe too succinct.
Oh okay, that's maybe toosuccinct.
And what he found is that theresponses he started getting to
(17:09):
his email were a little bitclearer the responses because
they were reading it a littlebit differently based upon that.
So that's one of the ways thathaving two people who are
different work together, even inthat scenario, has value to it,
because he was able to kind ofshift out the way that he
communicated and he picked up onthat himself.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
And he asked for your help sometimes to help pare it
down.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
Pare it down, but not pare it down enough to where
people didn't understand thepoints that he wanted to make.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Right, and by pare it down what I mean is amp down
the volume of it, but reallythat was by adding a little bit
more diplomatic words Sometimesadd, sometimes remove, sometimes
remove.
That's funny.
That's funny.
Now our son kind of summed upthe difference between Ken and I
when we were teaching him todrive.
(17:58):
He also is cautious and muchpreferred Ken's mentorship in
that area than mine.
And I said well, honey, why?
And by the way, he's grown now,so he's not going to love that
I'm telling this story.
I'm like why?
And he goes well, mom, when youwant me to slow down, you go
whoa, whoa, whoa.
And when Ken wants me to slowdown, he says give me a little
break.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Yes, and by doing that.
And we mean the same thing Slowdown and I will say that my
interaction, the way I was ableto do that with him, was having
experienced it with Nicole mydaughter before that, and I was
not saying give me a littlebreak.
So it was one of those learnedthings I was like, okay, because
(18:39):
she's at the time she's evenmore cautious than me Now she's
more direct than I am today.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
Yeah, that urgency is something that that situation,
that situation brings on.
So you know and and reallyremember that this is a
preference.
We can change it if we want to,but it's how we prefer it and
because, we prefer it.
It is harder to change how wehear it.
So I can know that Ken iscautious and and if I'm wanting
(19:07):
to influence him in some way, Ican choose my words in ways that
are not quite as demanding,right?
But I also know that he'scautious and I can't always hear
his cautious words in the waythat I need to adapt them, to
(19:29):
translate them to my language,right?
So we have a harder timehearing that, which is one of
the reasons that adaptation isreally important, and I've had
leaders, particularly directleaders, who say you know,
shouldn't they meet me halfway,like, can't I do a little of it?
And yes, if you have dialogueabout it, the answer would be
(19:49):
yes, but the reality of it isit's much harder to change how
we hear it than it is to changehow we say it.
So the deliverer of the messagedoes bear a little bit more
responsibility to consider howto package it.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
And preparation is a big part of that.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
With anything, and I had this conversation with one
of the folks who was a coachclient the other day and the
first part of being able toutilize any tool, in this case
with interface methods, is theonce you learn.
It is the willingness to adapt,because if I'm willing to adapt
, then the next parts becomemuch easier.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Which we believe is a critical life skill all the way
around and a primary ingredientin an organization's ability to
grow Right.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
Absolutely Teamwork, collaboration.
They take adaptation.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
Yeah, they take adaptation.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
But the good news is there too is that once people
also know that I'm willing toadapt, whether I'm cautious or
direct, they feel I'm a littlebit more open.
Yes, so that's a moreapproachable, yeah yeah, and you
mentioned earlier a couple ofstories and so I'll share one
here.
Maybe I'll share a fewdifferent stories.
We were with a client at anoffsite a few different stories.
(21:11):
We were with a client at anoffsite.
They wanted to take themoffsite so great offsite.
We were in Breckenridge,colorado.
So if anyone has ever been there, you know it's a beautiful
place and we were helping themto reset their strategic vision
for the next five years and sothey were planning on how they
were going to move forward, howthey're going to grow, and they
took all of their executivelevel out there and I think we
(21:31):
had about 20 people or so and itwas a very, very productive
meeting.
But one of the things they didwas unique they have customers
all over the country and inother countries also was they
did some off-sites from ouroff-site where they went and saw
some of their customersdirectly.
They took the opportunity theywere in those regions to see
people they don't see as often,so they would pair up or maybe
(21:53):
three or four people and go, andin this one car there was a SVP
, a senior vice president and aVP who reported to him and, as
they were driving to a customersite, the VP who was in the
backseat made a sound like youknow, as she told that like ugh
(22:16):
or something like that, butobviously that piqued the
interest of everyone else in thecar.
It's like what's going on andshe had received a text from a
customer and it was a text shefelt was unfair.
She felt the information wasnot accurate and so she wanted
to send a text back in return.
The SVP, who I will share, wasa cautious person, is a cautious
(22:40):
person still.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
They actually told this story at the workshop.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
As an example.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
Of the language.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
Yes, the SVP.
He, after asking her what it is, she read it, those information
to him, and so his response wasyou may want to consider
waiting and not send that textright now.
So he has put it out there inhis mind.
He's saying because he's notdoing it, don't do it, hold off,
give it a day and then go aheadand send something so that you
(23:09):
feel a bit clearer.
She heard they want to considerholding off on that.
That was something that shetook.
As Patty indicated earlier canhappen.
She took that as a suggestion,giving her the ability to make a
choice yes or no.
Her choice was yes, I do wantto send this out because I am
not happy about what I received.
And this is the way she told it.
(23:30):
And she, after typing it outand sending it quickly, gets
another response back.
And as they started to againtalk about that, they also
realized now they have extrawork to do, which is to go and
address this issue with thecustomer directly so there's no
(23:51):
misunderstanding and not havethat customer concerned about a
email that was too direct forthat person to, because this
person in the rear, the VP, wasa very, very strong, direct
person.
I mean, how do you, said to,they themselves realized what
happened through thattransaction.
They had actually taken theinterface tool but just in that
(24:12):
moment really didn't think itthrough when she did it because
she's a direct person she wantedto go ahead and do it and they
did start sharing information totheir teams, to other teams in
a way, that being you know, theycoming from the first person,
(24:34):
direct person and the cautiousperson, it allowed them to
really feel what they felt,because they would give a little
bit more of the how I wasfeeling too.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
Yeah, and what I loved about the way they told
that story is that at the endshe would say so.
I went back into him, my svp,and said why did?
Why didn't you tell me not tosend this?
And he said I did.
And in that moment everybodyreally understood.
Yes, this language is differentand and sometimes I can't hear
(25:03):
it the way that you mean it ifI'm different from you, yes,
right, but if you know thatyou're different from me, let's
think about repackaging andreconnecting that message.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
And the other part is , with most things is, if I'm
unsure and I'm communicatingwith someone, and I think that
let's say it's coming from Patty, who is more direct, my option
and my first option is can yourestate that for me?
Because here's what I heard, orI got that there may be
something that you might beupset about or something that's
(25:36):
really really urgent.
I just want to make sure Iunderstand what you're
communicating to me so you knowhow to address it, how to take
it and not go down a rabbit holeif you're cautious, because
I've been there before where youstart worrying about something
else other than really trulywhat the message was and what
was being asked to go do.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Yeah, one of the funnier demonstrations of this
difference Ken and I weretraveling and we had Siri on,
and you know Siri can be kind ofpersistent when you get off
track, like if you stop to go tothe bathroom of persistent when
you get off track, like if youstop to go to the bathroom and
Siri's saying telling us to turnaround and make a U-turn and
(26:16):
we're parking to get out andtake a break, and it's quite
annoying.
And remember that I'm directand Ken is cautious.
In the exact same moment I saySiri, shut up.
And he says, oh, siri, chill.
Yes, there's the differencebetween the direct and the
cautious.
So you know, if you've got aperson in your life more direct
or more cautious than you,whether that's at work, whether
it's your kid or yoursignificant other or your pastor
(26:39):
or the person that runs thenonprofit that you're
volunteering at, you know this.
And so then that adaptation iswhere the skill set comes in.
Influence means I can spot itand I can change the way that I
present my message in a way thatis going to resonate more with
(26:59):
you.
Yes, and you don't have to getit right the first time.
If you say your thing in thelanguage that doesn't resonate.
You'll know it.
You'll know it by the look ontheir face and you can say let
me restate that I don't thinkthat came out the way that I
meant for it to come out.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
Yes, body language, facial expressions, tell a lot
as to when we're speaking tosomeone, whether or not they
actually got what I was tryingto communicate to them, or maybe
somehow my communication didn'tconnect with them.
So sometimes also looking fornot just the verbal responses
but the nonverbal responses.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
So instead of me saying, honey, we need another
puppy, because I really thinkthat we do, it might be a better
approach.
If I take you to the dog partwith the dog and you see how
much fun she has with other dogsand I'm like, oh look, how
great that community is for her.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
That would be a better way to being more direct,
I don't think it will have animpact.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Actually, let me restate thatit won't have an impact.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
So now you're negating my ability to be an
authority on influence.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
No, I just threw in a cautious piece in that.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
Oh funny.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
With respect to that.
So when I said, you know Idon't think it'll have an impact
, no, I should say it will nothave an impact.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
He's pretty adamant that we're a one dog family and
I would have 10 more if I could.
Speaker 1 (28:21):
So, yeah, our dog is very direct.
She's pretty spoiled.
We don't need two direct dogsin the house, yeah, no.
But again, part of all of thisis when you are learning it, and
this comes from a lot of ourclients or in customers who have
utilized it over the years, whostill utilize it.
It is the willingness just toalso have fun with this.
(28:42):
We, as with anything we'relearning, we will try it out.
It may not fit perfectly thefirst time.
We may go, oh, how can this be?
How does this work?
For me, we find that it getspicked up very, very quickly,
often within the first week ortwo the language.
And then, once we have thatlanguage down and we start to
observe others and what thosebehaviors are, then we can
(29:04):
really utilize that Again.
Go back to this so I can havebetter influence, I can have
better clarity, whether it isagain in our personal lives, in
our business life or out in ourcommunities, because these
things are not tied to one areaof our lives.
It plays out every day, in allareas of our lives.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
Every conversation that we have, and you know we go
back to why we call this fourbars.
We go to so much effort to findthe four bars that if we put
some thought and energy into theexchange, once we get that
connection, what could weaccomplish?
Right, Absolutely.
So this part is something Kenand I are very passionate about
(29:46):
because we've seen it, we'velived it, we've worked together.
We've also learned to adapt andwe know when we haven't, and
we're pretty honest and upfrontabout that.
So that's been really healthyfor us.
But check it out if you'reinterested.
Interfacemethodscom is whereyou'll find more information
about it and revisit episode 13and episode 19.
(30:08):
Thanks for being with us today.
It's great to have thelisteners and the viewers, and
please feel free to share yourthoughts with us through our
4BarsPodcastcom about how we canmake this a better podcast for
you.
We have some amazing thingsplanned for our next year.
We can't wait to tell you aboutthem, but you'll have to tune
(30:29):
in to the next episode to hearabout that.
Yes, and if you get theopportunity also like and follow
us on social media.
We appreciate that and, asPatty said, we look forward to
our next time with you.
Hope you have a great week.
The Four Bars podcast has beenbrought to you by Edges Inc.
A growth advisory firm based inBentonville, arkansas.
(30:50):
I founded the company in 2001.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
Edges promotes growth , people, companies and ideas.
Our team collaboration tool,called Interface Methods, is a
basis for teams to work togethermore collaboratively,
understand each other and acceptdifferences and address
challenges together.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
We also started a nonprofit called Unform your
Bias.
We teach kids and their adultinfluencers how to utilize
storytelling as a means toreduce bias in the world.
We hope you'll check us out,subscribe to our podcast and
look at our website.
Welcome to the 4 Bars podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
I'm Ken Leith and I'm Patti Leith.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
We're your hosts for some compelling dialogue,
encouraging our listeners tostrengthen their connections and
build strong communities,lifting each other up and
connecting in ways that matter.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
We named the podcast 4 Bars as a reference to how
hard we work to find a 4 Barsconnection on our devices.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
And we wondered what could happen with relationships
if we worked as hard atconnecting.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Let's find out.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Hi, welcome back to Four Bars.
We're glad to have you.
I'm one of your hosts, KenLeith, and with me I have.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
I'm Patti Leith, a co-host, and we are doing this
episode on our own.
It's only the fourth one we'vedone in this way.
We're kind of celebrating ayear of doing these podcasts, so
that's kind of a cool milestone.
We're seeing our viewershipgrow, we're seeing our listeners
grow and we're going toencourage you to share this
podcast with at least one otherperson and think about following
(00:54):
and subscribing, as you do.
We are going to spend a littlebit of time continuing our
dialogue about collaboration,because we think that
collaboration is a really bigpart of what builds community,
and in today's episode, we'regoing to explore a key element
inside of collaboration and thatis influence.
(01:15):
So previously we have spent alittle time telling you about
our collaboration tool, and Ithink that we mentioned in
episode 13 that that toolhighlights the differences in
three different areas.
So I think that we mentioned inepisode 13 that that tool
highlights the differences inthree different areas.
So I'm going to revisit thoseand, if you're interested, go
back and check out episode 13and episode 19.
In episode 13, we talked aboutthe fact that when we are
(01:38):
working or processing things inour personal environment, we
have a tendency to want acertain level of detail and when
that certain level of detail isdifferent from the person we're
working with, married to,living with, corresponding with,
we sometimes have some friction.
This is a predominant part ofany collaborative effort is to
(02:02):
recognize this difference and tomove ahead.
We call that a changing leaf,that's a big picture person who
wants to think about theoutcomes and then follow up with
the details.
Or an evergreen, that's adetail-oriented person who wants
to start with the details andwork up to the outcome.
We approach work differentlyand yet both of our approaches
are very necessary for the workto be good.
(02:24):
And again, this is not just atwork, it's also at home and at
church and at our civic groups.
In episode 19, we took a lookat how we process information.
Ken, you want to talk aboutthat?
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Yes.
So when we think aboutprocessing information, how do
we take something from an ideato a reality?
How do we move it forward,advance it?
Some people think about it asgoing from zero to 60.
So when we think about thatinformation that we process, we
do that either internally, wherewe like to think it through.
We want to consider all thevariables internally, think it
(02:57):
through, do a little research ifwe want, but we do that alone,
generally speaking, and we feelmost comfortable doing that.
Again, it's not that we can'tverbalize it, it's just that we
feel more comfortable that way.
The flip side of that issomeone who wants to do it
externally.
So if you think about someonewho may be walking around the
office, who talks to peopleperiodically and they do that
(03:18):
that might be someone who'sworking through a project or a
challenge that they're havingand each time they are speaking
to someone they're gatheringanother piece of data, they are
grabbing a piece of the puzzleto help them solve it.
So, conversely to the personwho did it internally, they are
going to engage people andthey're getting moved towards
their solution by being able tohave that dialogue.
Again, neither is right orwrong.
(03:40):
Both can be effective.
Sometimes there are someopportunities where or not
opportunities?
I'll say sometimes it can beeffective.
Sometimes there are someopportunities where or not
opportunities?
I'll say sometimes it can be toyour term friction.
That occurs Because if I'msomeone who's thinking about it
and just talking to people or,excuse me, thinking about it
internally, then what can happenthere is.
Other people might not knowthat I'm spending time thinking
(04:00):
about that.
I'm connected to somethingmaybe the team is working on, so
they may wonder why I'minvolved in a meeting.
Yeah, conversely, if I'm aninternal processor and I'm
working with someone who's anexternal processor and they come
by and they tell me one day I'mtalking to them, I take
something and then they go away,I might think that, oh, we've
(04:21):
landed on a solution, butthey're still collecting pieces
of the puzzle.
So I might judge them a littlebit.
It's like, are they flighty?
Are they someone who can't makea decision?
Because I thought we made adecision.
In essence, it's just sometimesthe communication.
In that scenario, they say I'mjust thinking about it or
working through it.
I'm not yet complete on that.
Let me finish that and I'llcome back to you.
Yeah, so again, just anothermethod behavior.
(04:44):
There's not a right or wrong tothis, and that's the beauty of
it.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Yeah, yeah, and I'm going to point out that in the
description Ken just gave ofwhat we covered in episode 19
and the description I gave, youcan see that Ken is more detail
oriented than I am.
He shared a little more, butyou can learn a lot about both
of these characteristics and howthey play out in our
relationships.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
If you look back on the previous episode, absolutely
, and if you do, one of theother things is that the tool
we're talking about is ourinterface methods tool.
So it's one that's been aroundfor many years now and in many
iterations of that.
So when customers use it, theyuse it.
I'm just going to talk aboutthat for a second.
They use it anywhere frombringing a group together to
work on strategy Maybe it'stheir executive team or maybe
(05:30):
it's groups within theirorganization and they try to get
teams that have people who doit differently Because, think
about it, if it's all people whoare process oriented, those
linear thinkers, then they'regoing to do a really great job
of creating the process andmaking sure the detail's there.
But they may have a challengewith pushing the ideation and
(05:51):
the innovation of it.
So their risk there may belosing market share because
they're not innovative.
On the other side of that isthose people who are thinking
about things and working throughit on the team who are big
picture thinkers.
They are really good at pushingus the envelope and asking why
can't we do something differentmore, which is great but if they
(06:13):
are not supported by thoseother thinkers, they might not
have the process that's reallyaccurate, that's detailed enough
for people to go execute.
So then you could lose marketshare and opportunities there.
But together, working together,creates really really powerful
force and really productive work.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Yeah.
So today we're going to tackleinfluence and collaboration, and
there is one element that'smeasured on the interface
methods tool that tells us whatour preference is when we're
influencing and collaborating.
The beautiful thing about theinterface methods tool is it's
behavioral.
So when I spot a difference, Ican do three things I can not
(06:53):
judge and I can willfully adapt,and then, in doing so, I can
connect better with the personthat I'm talking with.
That's different from apersonality tool, which is
harder to change, right.
So our research showed thatthere were these three things
that really mattered when peoplewere communicating.
And when we're different, ourother choice is to judge and to
(07:17):
disconnect, right.
So I guess we really have fivechoices.
But really, what you want to dois you want to recognize the
difference, not judge thatdifference, and then plan a good
, strong connection for thatperson.
So we'll talk today about onethat really is.
You have to recognize and be.
(07:39):
It's very easy to recognize,but it's important to be really
intentional about youradaptation, and that's influence
and collaboration.
Influence is something that isnecessary from everything in
your life from talking to yourkids, trying to convince your
husband you need to get anotherpuppy which, by the way.
(08:01):
Maybe I'm not a good person totalk about influence, because
I've not been able to convincehim of that, but I'm continuing
to work on it.
So check back with me on thatone.
To you know, trying to makesure that the contractor working
on your home or your landlordwho's supposed to fix something
in your living space is doingwhat you need for them to do.
(08:21):
It's also a skill that isheavily utilized in our civic
exchanges and in our workspace,and when we do it differently,
we have a tendency to judge theother person.
So I'm going to tell you thatthose two methods on a continuum
between really strong andsomewhere in the middle, and
(08:42):
then really strong again, arevery direct and very cautious,
and we can kind of be somewherein the middle.
But the reality of it is thatwhen I am a direct influencer,
my language, the words that Ichoose, the things that come
into my head and then quicklyget moved out into the world by
my mouth, are different fromsomebody who is more cautious.
(09:05):
The cautious person's language,again, what comes into their
head and what they say withoutthinking about it, is different,
and when we use these differentlanguages we have a hard time
hearing the other person.
So direct and cautious are veryeasy to spot because it's you
know, a direct person is prettyupfront, pretty succinct, pretty
(09:26):
cut and dry, and a cautiousperson is going to be more
diplomatic a little bit more can.
There's more qualifying wordsin the way that they say it.
But what happens is when I saymy direct thing to a cautious
person, it's more than what Imean it to be, and sometimes
that will cause them to checkout and if a cautious person
(09:49):
says their cautious thing to me,I might not hear it as what
they mean, I might only hear itas a suggestion.
And so exploring this dynamicin your personal and your
professional lives and in yourcommunity work that you're a
part of it, is critical toreally kind of say, okay, how do
I communicate and why, butrecognize that I have the
(10:12):
ability to spot that yourpreference is different and I
can adapt.
Yes, so you want to share acouple of stories about this
difference.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
We've seen it a lot.
It plays out every day, everyday In everyday life, and I will
say that you can look for it inTV shows, like you totally can
look for it in TV shows.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
Agreed A hundred percent.
We've seen a lot of that.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
And if it's well written, it really scripts out
that difference.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Yes, so, yes, I will say that when you think about
these two differences here, itis something where we can really
easily start to.
Once we identify our method andunderstand how people who are
different utilize their abilityto influence, then we can adapt
(11:04):
our message point for them, andthat's one of the key things.
Before we end conversation ofstories about those, that's a
big deal for that one.
The other thing about thiscautious and direct difference
we'll talk a little bit todayabout what can you do to be able
to adapt?
What does adaptation look likewhen you're working with someone
else, so that, if you knowyou're working with someone
(11:24):
who's different in this area,you can actually prep your
interface for that meeting withthem in order to have the best
opportunity to influence them?
Speaker 2 (11:33):
yeah, absolutely, absolutely so.
So when, when a cautious personand you're more cautious than I
am I, and anybody who knows usknows this to be true.
Um, I'm going to be more direct.
We both have moved a little bittowards the middle in being
married to each other for almost20 years, in the years that
(11:54):
we've been together.
Right, I think it was much moresubstantially different 10
years ago, or even 20.
But the cautious person willchoose words that have more
diplomacy, and that usuallyincludes some qualifying words
like might, maybe, possiblythink about, could instead of
(12:21):
should, should, do now, right.
So the direct person is goingto say don't do that and the
cautious person is going to sayyou might want to think about
possibly considering not doingthat, and that's great.
If a cautious person says thatto a cautious person, what they
(12:42):
mean, which is don't do it, isgoing to come across to a
cautious person because they'respeaking the same language.
They use qualifying words totemper around what it is that
they're saying and they'respeaking the same language.
But if that cautious personsays that might want to consider
, possibly to a direct person,the direct person kind of shoos
(13:04):
it away like a fruit fly andsays, no, that's just a
suggestion.
You know, hold my beer, watchthis, I'm going to do it anyway,
right.
So the, so the, the language isnot the same.
When the direct person says tothe cautious person, don't do
that, it feels a littleoffensive, a little too strong,
(13:24):
a little bit like what do youmean?
And and in fact, if they saythat to a direct person because
they speak the same language, itwon't feel that way.
When that direct person makes areally succinct statement, the
cautious person reads it the waythey would want they would make
(13:45):
that statement if they were infact on their third try, right,
I'm frustrated.
So when I say to Ken no, don'tdo that.
He wouldn't say it that way tome until he had tried a few
other ways to say it, right.
And so what comes across isthat gee for her to say it that
(14:06):
way.
She's got to be reallyfrustrated when I am not at all.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
Right.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
And I don't mean you know, I don't mean it in a way
that is supposed to beoverbearing.
I don't mean it in anydifferent way than you would
mean it if you said you mightwant to consider holding off on
that, Right yeah, we weretalking today about my social
media and he was.
I was sharing something that Ihad read and he said you know,
(14:33):
you might want to think aboutdialing back that, because what
I had read was somewhatdisturbing, as a lot of it is
today, and what I heard from himwas this was it was a
suggestion, and what you meantwas don't be reading that stuff,
right?
Basically, yes.
And he's right, by the way.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
Yes, yeah, again, I think that as we think about
these differences, it issomething that, as we get better
with it and we actually knowsomeone else's differences and
where they are different from us, it's something also that
tempers some of that frictionyou might have there or that
thinking of oh, they're comingon, they're saying it very
(15:15):
succinctly, so they're upset themore you know that.
And I'll give you an example mylast CEO that I reported to in
corporate America before westarted working together, he was
a very direct person and atfirst it was like wow, he is
very, very direct.
And when our relationship wasfine but I kind of took some of
(15:37):
his stuff as everything he wouldsay was I need to go make sure
I do it now.
And I had to address it at ahigher level of urgency and I
didn't necessarily need to dothat.
But we organically, through ourworking together, started to
identify this difference in theway that that played out, and it
was one that sometimes he wouldactually, in his correspondence
(15:58):
, show his he'd come off verydirect in his correspondence,
which then, especially ifsomeone he was writing to was
cautious, that could lead themto down a path of wow, is he
just mad, right?
Speaker 2 (16:12):
What's the real point here?
Is he mad?
That's what?
Yes, yeah.
What level of frustrationexists for him to say it that
way?
And the answer is probably none, no.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
He was just a very direct person, but he was also
someone who had a lot of energy.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
And so he would sometimes write the same way and
it would come out where, again,people would be confused
Organically.
Somehow and I can't evenremember how it happened there
was something he was writing.
He asked me about it and I gavehim a little bit of feedback
that he wanted on that andbasically what I did was I
helped temper it to make surethat it was factual, which is
what direct people want to do.
(16:48):
They want to give the facts andbe done with that.
We want the next thing often,and so he was able to then take
that same correspondence, temperit a little bit, not
necessarily use cautious words,but remove some words that maybe
were a little bit oh OK, that'smaybe too succinct.
Oh okay, that's maybe toosuccinct.
And what he found is that theresponses he started getting to
(17:09):
his email were a little bitclearer the responses because
they were reading it a littlebit differently based upon that.
So that's one of the ways thathaving two people who are
different work together, even inthat scenario, has value to it,
because he was able to kind ofshift out the way that he
communicated and he picked up onthat himself.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
And he asked for your help sometimes to help pare it
down.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
Pare it down, but not pare it down enough to where
people didn't understand thepoints that he wanted to make.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Right, and by pare it down what I mean is amp down
the volume of it, but reallythat was by adding a little bit
more diplomatic words Sometimesadd, sometimes remove, sometimes
remove.
That's funny.
That's funny.
Now our son kind of summed upthe difference between Ken and I
when we were teaching him todrive.
(17:58):
He also is cautious and muchpreferred Ken's mentorship in
that area than mine.
And I said well, honey, why?
And by the way, he's grown now,so he's not going to love that
I'm telling this story.
I'm like why?
And he goes well, mom, when youwant me to slow down, you go
whoa, whoa, whoa.
And when Ken wants me to slowdown, he says give me a little
break.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Yes, and by doing that.
And we mean the same thing Slowdown and I will say that my
interaction, the way I was ableto do that with him, was having
experienced it with Nicole mydaughter before that, and I was
not saying give me a littlebreak.
So it was one of those learnedthings I was like, okay, because
(18:39):
she's at the time she's evenmore cautious than me Now she's
more direct than I am today.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
Yeah, that urgency is something that that situation,
that situation brings on.
So you know and and reallyremember that this is a
preference.
We can change it if we want to,but it's how we prefer it and
because, we prefer it.
It is harder to change how wehear it.
So I can know that Ken iscautious and and if I'm wanting
(19:07):
to influence him in some way, Ican choose my words in ways that
are not quite as demanding,right?
But I also know that he'scautious and I can't always hear
his cautious words in the waythat I need to adapt them, to
(19:29):
translate them to my language,right?
So we have a harder timehearing that, which is one of
the reasons that adaptation isreally important, and I've had
leaders, particularly directleaders, who say you know,
shouldn't they meet me halfway,like, can't I do a little of it?
And yes, if you have dialogueabout it, the answer would be
(19:49):
yes, but the reality of it isit's much harder to change how
we hear it than it is to changehow we say it.
So the deliverer of the messagedoes bear a little bit more
responsibility to consider howto package it.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
And preparation is a big part of that.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
With anything, and I had this conversation with one
of the folks who was a coachclient the other day and the
first part of being able toutilize any tool, in this case
with interface methods, is theonce you learn.
It is the willingness to adapt,because if I'm willing to adapt
, then the next parts becomemuch easier.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Which we believe is a critical life skill all the way
around and a primary ingredientin an organization's ability to
grow Right.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
Absolutely Teamwork, collaboration.
They take adaptation.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
Yeah, they take adaptation.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
But the good news is there too is that once people
also know that I'm willing toadapt, whether I'm cautious or
direct, they feel I'm a littlebit more open.
Yes, so that's a moreapproachable, yeah yeah, and you
mentioned earlier a couple ofstories and so I'll share one
here.
Maybe I'll share a fewdifferent stories.
We were with a client at anoffsite a few different stories.
(21:11):
We were with a client at anoffsite.
They wanted to take themoffsite so great offsite.
We were in Breckenridge,colorado.
So if anyone has ever been there, you know it's a beautiful
place and we were helping themto reset their strategic vision
for the next five years and sothey were planning on how they
were going to move forward, howthey're going to grow, and they
took all of their executivelevel out there and I think we
(21:31):
had about 20 people or so and itwas a very, very productive
meeting.
But one of the things they didwas unique they have customers
all over the country and inother countries also was they
did some off-sites from ouroff-site where they went and saw
some of their customersdirectly.
They took the opportunity theywere in those regions to see
people they don't see as often,so they would pair up or maybe
(21:53):
three or four people and go, andin this one car there was a SVP
, a senior vice president and aVP who reported to him and, as
they were driving to a customersite, the VP who was in the
backseat made a sound like youknow, as she told that like ugh
(22:16):
or something like that, butobviously that piqued the
interest of everyone else in thecar.
It's like what's going on andshe had received a text from a
customer and it was a text shefelt was unfair.
She felt the information wasnot accurate and so she wanted
to send a text back in return.
The SVP, who I will share, wasa cautious person, is a cautious
(22:40):
person still.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
They actually told this story at the workshop.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
As an example.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
Of the language.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
Yes, the SVP.
He, after asking her what it is, she read it, those information
to him, and so his response wasyou may want to consider
waiting and not send that textright now.
So he has put it out there inhis mind.
He's saying because he's notdoing it, don't do it, hold off,
give it a day and then go aheadand send something so that you
(23:09):
feel a bit clearer.
She heard they want to considerholding off on that.
That was something that shetook.
As Patty indicated earlier canhappen.
She took that as a suggestion,giving her the ability to make a
choice yes or no.
Her choice was yes, I do wantto send this out because I am
not happy about what I received.
And this is the way she told it.
(23:30):
And she, after typing it outand sending it quickly, gets
another response back.
And as they started to againtalk about that, they also
realized now they have extrawork to do, which is to go and
address this issue with thecustomer directly so there's no
(23:51):
misunderstanding and not havethat customer concerned about a
email that was too direct forthat person to, because this
person in the rear, the VP, wasa very, very strong, direct
person.
I mean, how do you, said to,they themselves realized what
happened through thattransaction.
They had actually taken theinterface tool but just in that
(24:12):
moment really didn't think itthrough when she did it because
she's a direct person she wantedto go ahead and do it and they
did start sharing information totheir teams, to other teams in
a way, that being you know, theycoming from the first person,
(24:34):
direct person and the cautiousperson, it allowed them to
really feel what they felt,because they would give a little
bit more of the how I wasfeeling too.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
Yeah, and what I loved about the way they told
that story is that at the endshe would say so.
I went back into him, my svp,and said why did?
Why didn't you tell me not tosend this?
And he said I did.
And in that moment everybodyreally understood.
Yes, this language is differentand and sometimes I can't hear
(25:03):
it the way that you mean it ifI'm different from you, yes,
right, but if you know thatyou're different from me, let's
think about repackaging andreconnecting that message.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
And the other part is , with most things is, if I'm
unsure and I'm communicatingwith someone, and I think that
let's say it's coming from Patty, who is more direct, my option
and my first option is can yourestate that for me?
Because here's what I heard, orI got that there may be
something that you might beupset about or something that's
(25:36):
really really urgent.
I just want to make sure Iunderstand what you're
communicating to me so you knowhow to address it, how to take
it and not go down a rabbit holeif you're cautious, because
I've been there before where youstart worrying about something
else other than really trulywhat the message was and what
was being asked to go do.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Yeah, one of the funnier demonstrations of this
difference Ken and I weretraveling and we had Siri on,
and you know Siri can be kind ofpersistent when you get off
track, like if you stop to go tothe bathroom of persistent when
you get off track, like if youstop to go to the bathroom and
Siri's saying telling us to turnaround and make a U-turn and
(26:16):
we're parking to get out andtake a break, and it's quite
annoying.
And remember that I'm directand Ken is cautious.
In the exact same moment I saySiri, shut up.
And he says, oh, siri, chill.
Yes, there's the differencebetween the direct and the
cautious.
So you know, if you've got aperson in your life more direct
or more cautious than you,whether that's at work, whether
it's your kid or yoursignificant other or your pastor
(26:39):
or the person that runs thenonprofit that you're
volunteering at, you know this.
And so then that adaptation iswhere the skill set comes in.
Influence means I can spot itand I can change the way that I
present my message in a way thatis going to resonate more with
(26:59):
you.
Yes, and you don't have to getit right the first time.
If you say your thing in thelanguage that doesn't resonate.
You'll know it.
You'll know it by the look ontheir face and you can say let
me restate that I don't thinkthat came out the way that I
meant for it to come out.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
Yes, body language, facial expressions, tell a lot
as to when we're speaking tosomeone, whether or not they
actually got what I was tryingto communicate to them, or maybe
somehow my communication didn'tconnect with them.
So sometimes also looking fornot just the verbal responses
but the nonverbal responses.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
So instead of me saying, honey, we need another
puppy, because I really thinkthat we do, it might be a better
approach.
If I take you to the dog partwith the dog and you see how
much fun she has with other dogsand I'm like, oh look, how
great that community is for her.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
That would be a better way to being more direct,
I don't think it will have animpact.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Actually, let me restate thatit won't have an impact.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
So now you're negating my ability to be an
authority on influence.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
No, I just threw in a cautious piece in that.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
Oh funny.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
With respect to that.
So when I said, you know Idon't think it'll have an impact
, no, I should say it will nothave an impact.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
He's pretty adamant that we're a one dog family and
I would have 10 more if I could.
Speaker 1 (28:21):
So, yeah, our dog is very direct.
She's pretty spoiled.
We don't need two direct dogsin the house, yeah, no.
But again, part of all of thisis when you are learning it, and
this comes from a lot of ourclients or in customers who have
utilized it over the years, whostill utilize it.
It is the willingness just toalso have fun with this.
(28:42):
We, as with anything we'relearning, we will try it out.
It may not fit perfectly thefirst time.
We may go, oh, how can this be?
How does this work?
For me, we find that it getspicked up very, very quickly,
often within the first week ortwo the language.
And then, once we have thatlanguage down and we start to
observe others and what thosebehaviors are, then we can
(29:04):
really utilize that Again.
Go back to this so I can havebetter influence, I can have
better clarity, whether it isagain in our personal lives, in
our business life or out in ourcommunities, because these
things are not tied to one areaof our lives.
It plays out every day, in allareas of our lives.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
Every conversation that we have, and you know we go
back to why we call this fourbars.
We go to so much effort to findthe four bars that if we put
some thought and energy into theexchange, once we get that
connection, what could weaccomplish?
Right, Absolutely.
So this part is something Kenand I are very passionate about
(29:46):
because we've seen it, we'velived it, we've worked together.
We've also learned to adapt andwe know when we haven't, and
we're pretty honest and upfrontabout that.
So that's been really healthyfor us.
But check it out if you'reinterested.
Interfacemethodscom is whereyou'll find more information
about it and revisit episode 13and episode 19.
(30:08):
Thanks for being with us today.
It's great to have thelisteners and the viewers, and
please feel free to share yourthoughts with us through our
4BarsPodcastcom about how we canmake this a better podcast for
you.
We have some amazing thingsplanned for our next year.
We can't wait to tell you aboutthem, but you'll have to tune
(30:29):
in to the next episode to hearabout that.
Yes, and if you get theopportunity also like and follow
us on social media.
We appreciate that and, asPatty said, we look forward to
our next time with you.
Hope you have a great week.
The Four Bars podcast has beenbrought to you by Edges Inc.
A growth advisory firm based inBentonville, arkansas.
(30:50):
I founded the company in 2001.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
Edges promotes growth , people, companies and ideas.
Our team collaboration tool,called Interface Methods, is a
basis for teams to work togethermore collaboratively,
understand each other and acceptdifferences and address
challenges together.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
We also started a nonprofit called Unform your
Bias.
We teach kids and their adultinfluencers how to utilize
storytelling as a means toreduce bias in the world.
We hope you'll check us out,subscribe to our podcast and
look at our website.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.