I happen to stumble across different types of people in my long career working in software companies. I always had indirectly looked at the ways people converse with others. Being good at communication means different things to different people. I give my observations on this below.
I have seen most of the Indian engineers whom I have worked with are generally far less communicative than their western counterparts. One hindrance is still English being a non-native language. But language is only one aspect. There are several aspects to relaying your thoughts in a crisp and clean way so that the other person exactly gets your intentions.
Beyond the structure and semantics of what languages offer, there is the subject of your communication. You don't need to be flowery on your choice of words. Just getting the point across with the right level of emotion needed is an art.
Some times, I have tried to sound angry when things don't seem to go the right way in projects. But the words that I choose to convey will still convey the right things. I feel it is important to reign in your emotions and be able to express it in a tone that does not spoil what you would have ultimately wanted to convey.
Imagine this, when some one bangs your car on the road, will you still be able to get the facts across that the other person did the wrong (I am talking about Indian roads..). ?
I doubt you will be able to show controlled emotion and choice of words here. I am obviously contradicting myself between the last bunch of statements I make.
I guess the situation, people etc. makes this difference. In office, surrounded by colleagues, a mistake done by some one can still be dealt in a way with the right choice of words. If there are repeated occurrences, then office procedures are always there to take the action. So, here it is still valid.
However, some one unknown on the road who inflicts a injury to you or to your asset, you still need to react what you feel absolutely. Does not mean you can be violent in your words or deeds still. Remember again your long innings of 80+ years and this is just a passing thing. So, if you do that long shot thinking, this is not worth spending all your energy and going bonkers over it. So be cool always, as much as possible.
Coming back to conversations, I used to ask my fellow engineers whom I am guiding on design or programming to spell out what they understood. I have seen some repeat like a parrot without thinking. Very few get a summary understanding of a long conversation. It is easy to isolate the people who understood from who have not. Nowadays this is important with engineering degrees being a commodity churned out with the net result of a person standing in front of you with absolutely no clue of what he is supposed to know.
Many books say a good conversation is always levelled. With both the parties listening and conversing in equal measures. But I feel it need not be. Many a time, I have found that simply listening fully and being able to spend all your attention to understand the fellow being, even if you have your opinion, may often find that what the other person is talking exactly reflects your opinion. So no need to waste time enforcing it. If one of the parties take this stand, it saves time and makes your life easy.
However, I find one exception to the above rule. When the other person whom you are talking to is mostly on a subject that is very light, more for entertainment purposes or a casual conversation without a goal to achieve like in a official environment, it is better to follow the rule of maintaining a equal level. Allow them to talk and at the same time find your points through or try to meet your points by interjections, agreeing nods and so on.
The biggest problem I see in most offices are the time spent in making each other known of what I am doing. This has become such a pain that it affects all the time you have to work on your stuff. It is crazy many a time that people come to meetings with less preparations and with a view of just sucking all what some one else's has done putting in hard work and on top of it question them without sufficient thinking just to highlight their knowledge of the subject. These are dangerous as it will set a very bad outlook on your other colleague who has painstakingly prepared to be there. I see this especially when there are the so-called experienced managers who does absolutely nothing....yes I mean it and they simply by the sheer weight of their mostly useless experience tend to absolutely hijack a junior's conversation without understanding what he or she is trying to come out with and instead start concluding on what needs to be done.
Many MNCs have many such folks who have absolutely no clue on what they are there for. But comfortably positioned to execute the orders of their higher ups with no sense of understanding why such a thing is needed and how it really affects the business. This is how the growth of a company shields inefficiencies and over time there are very few who steers the company with so many hanging by the side and the whole thing navigates towards doom.
Every ones position, work and achievements should be under constant scrutiny, not by another person, but by themselves. What is the value Iam adding ? How does it help the business? How am I helpful in my role to my fellow workers? Honestly, I have always had these questions with partially convincing answers most of the time I had spent life in MNCs.
Big companies should still work like a large assemblage of start-ups I feel. This way the purpose will be very clear. However, I do think, biggies don't have great innovations and instead they bask in the glory of what they have innovated in the past. This means the work is pretty much mundane and why put pressure on things which can be achieved with less pressure and mediocre minds?
See Iam contradicting my own theories here again...
thats what should be a healthy conversation in my opinion again!
No comments:
Post a Comment