Lemanskills.com

Artykuły

Leadership

Communication Intelligence (CQ): A Key to the Effective Leadership

In the ever-evolving landscape of work, where collaboration and innovation are necessary to survive on the demanding market, one skill stands out as a game-changer: Communication Intelligence (CQ). As a tech leadership expert and someone deeply invested in helping leaders and teams create environments where people thrive, I cannot stress enough the importance of mastering CQ. It’s not just about talking or listening; it’s about understanding, tailoring, and connecting. Let’s dive into what CQ is, why it matters, and how we can build this skill: both as leaders and team members.   What Is Communication Intelligence (CQ)?   At its core, Communication Intelligence (CQ) is the ability to adapt your communication style to connect effectively with others. It’s about being aware of your own communication tendencies while recognizing and responding to the diverse preferences of those around you. Think of it as emotional intelligence (EQ) but focused specifically on how we exchange information, ideas, and emotions. CQ involves empathy, adaptability, and clarity. It’s not just about what you say but how you say it—and how it’s received. Mastering CQ means being intentional in your interactions and ensuring that your message resonates with the person or people on the other side.   Why Is CQ Essential for Leaders and Team Members?   In my work with leaders and teams, I often see how miscommunication can ruin even the best intentions. A lack of CQ can lead to misunderstandings, conflict, and disengagement. On the flip side, strong CQ fosters trust, collaboration, and alignment: key ingredients for both thriving teams and great business results. Here’s why CQ is crucial: #1 For Leaders: they set the tone for communication within their teams. If a leader lacks CQ, they risk alienating team members, failing to inspire, or unintentionally creating a culture of fear or confusion. Leaders with high CQ can tailor their messages to motivate diverse individuals, navigate difficult conversations with grace, and build an environment where everyone feels heard and valued.   #2 For Team Members: in a team setting, CQ helps individuals collaborate more effectively. When team members understand each other’s communication styles, they can avoid unnecessary friction and build stronger relationships. High CQ also empowers individuals to voice their ideas in ways that resonate with others, fostering innovation and mutual respect. Understanding what high CQ looks like (and what it doesn’t) is key to developing this skill. Let’s explore some examples and anti-examples.   Examples of High CQ Behaviors: – active listening: truly hearing what someone is saying without interrupting or jumping to conclusions to soon, – tailoring messaging: adapting your tone, language, or delivery based on the audience. For instance, explaining a technical concept in simple terms for a non-technical stakeholder, – understanding in action: acknowledging someone’s emotions and needs before moving to problem-solving. For example, saying, “I can see this situation has been frustrating for you” before diving into solutions, – clarity in feedback: providing constructive feedback that is specific, actionable, and framed positively. And what’s even more: giving people space to take it in and make a decision what they want to do with it (take or discard), – proactive negative conflict resolution: addressing misunderstandings early rather than letting them grow and eat people alive. And remembering that not all conflicts are bad (actually a fear of conflict is one of the 5 Dysfunctions Of The Team by Patrick Lencioni).   Anti-Examples of Low CQ Behaviors: – interrupting or talking over others: this signals a lack of respect and can shut down meaningful dialogue. It also means that you don’t care about the other person, or anything they say or think, – one-size-fits-all communication: using the same approach for everyone without considering individual preferences or needs. There’s only 17% of chances that the person next to you prefers your communication base. That’s why listening and tailoring is so important: to get the stakes higher than that, – ignoring non-verbal cues: overlooking body language or tone that suggests someone is uncomfortable or disengaged. We have 4 things we can observe: mimics, ton of voice, gestures and posture. Ignoring those non-verbal imformation is going to cost us a lot, – defensiveness in feedback: reacting negatively when receiving constructive criticism instead of seeking to understand, ask more questions, be curious about what the other person wants to say to me, – avoiding difficult conversations: failing to address issues directly, leading to confusion or resentment. And the further it goes, the worse it becomes: it’s really difficiult to stop the huge snowball. So what we can do to avoid those anti-examples?   Use PCM to Build it!   One of the most effective tools I use when working with leaders and teams on CQ is the Process Communication Model (PCM). PCM provides a framework for understanding different personality types and their communication preferences. It’s like having a map that helps you navigate the complexities of human interaction. So why PCM is a good idea to support buildling a high CQ level? It gives you bigger self-awareness: start by identifying your own dominant personality type. This helps you understand your natural communication style and potential blind spots. With whom it’s super easy to go with and when it will be a bigger challenge. It equips you with higher ability of observation: pay attention to the verbal and non-verbal cues of others to identify their preferred communication style. For example: – A Thinker might appreciate detailed agendas and logical arguments. – A Harmonizer may respond better to warmth and emotional connection. It gives you a reason to adapt more: tailor your communication to match the other person’s style. If you’re a Promoter speaking with an Imaginer, slow down and give them time to process rather than pushing for immediate action. It shows you how to practice under stress: PCM also teaches us how stress impacts communication. For instance, under stress, a Thinker might become overly critical, while a Rebel might resort to sarcasm and manipulation. Recognizing these patterns helps us respond constructively rather than

Read More »
Transactional Analysis

PCM: Communication Channels

When I was describing all 6 Process Communication Model (PCM) types, it dawned on me that if I want to find one aspect of it that interests me, I need to go into each article and look for one part. And there are some of those, that are more important to dig deeper into, a good example is the aspect of communication channel. So I’ve decided that I’ll go into this directing to simplify and edit this experience for you: to go into some aspects of PCM, with practical examples. Hope that’ll be useful and will give you all the impulse to start using it in real life.   What Are Communication Channels?   Before we go into the details, let’s start with answering this questions: what a channel actually is? Communication channel is the way we build a sentence we want to push forward the other person (doesn’t matter if it’s a written or verbal communication). Surprisingly it really does matter if we put a question mark or a period at the end of the sentence. It matters so much that most of the time it has a huge influence on if the communication will go through or not (will be efficient or will lead to a misunderstanding). What do I mean by that? Take a look on those examples (purposefully not business-related): What do you think about this painting? Please tell me what you think about this painting. Oh man, what a painting, I’m sure it kills us both just from looking at it!!!!! Thank you for being here with me to marvel this painting, I’m more than happy to hear your impressions on it. Do you see the difference? We all have one dominant preference of getting and using the channel, depends on our personality base. When you look on those sentences: which one is the most comfortable for you? Depending on which one you choose, it’s a strong indicator of your base.   Requestive Channel   The first sentence is a great example of a requestive channel. As you can see, the idea is simple: ask a question (so a sentence with a question mark at the end of it). Using the knowledge that you already have, you can see the difference between the questions that we can ask towards 2 bases that will prefer this channel: Thinker and Persister. Channel is only one part of the puzzle: if we want communication to go through with success we need to combine a preferred channel with a favorite perception. That’s why we’ll ask different question within a conversation with a Thinker and Persister. We’ll ask: Thinker: “What do you think…?” Persister “What is your opinion on…? / What do you believe…?” It is important to ask the right questions. And as much important is to know which channels are not so good to use in communication with certain types. Thinker and Persister will react really badly on others, but the worst thing you can do is to use directive channel. It will trigger them to go straight into distress, reactive aggressively form their attacker mask.   Directive Channel   Directive channel is about creating the sentence with the dot at the end of it. I would love for all of us to demystify being direct and separate it from being aggressive, rude or too pushy. Being directive is just saying what there’s to be done: I’m not asking you or hesitate. I just say it in a straightforward way, taking care of OK-OK perspective. Two PCM types prefer to get it: Promoter and Imaginer. And again, it will differ on how we build a communication to each of them. That’s because their need of getting directive channel is different: Promoter doesn’t want to waste time, so they just want to get a task and move to action. Imaginer wants to be invited to share what’s in their heads, so they need direct communication to do that. So, the way we is this channel matters. We’ll say: Promoter: “Please create this report for tomorrow, not later than 5PM.” Imaginer: “I need this report to be done by tomorrow, not later than 5PM. Please tell me what you see in your head when I ask you to do it.”  Both are tasks we want to delegate for a person but said differently. They are not very good at receiving requestive channel, also Imaginer will react with a drooper mask on Emotive one (too much emotion for them).    Emotive Channel   Emotive channel is about the positive energy and contact. As we can easily guess, the Rebel is our person here: it’s their favorite channel. In this one they can exchange energy, creative ideas, brainstorm and get into positive contact with others. It works even if it’s just for a little bit at the beginning of the conversation. How can it look like? “OH MAAAAN, this weekend was so dope, I need to tell you about it!” “C’mon, let’s do it and then we’ll go into the agenda: it won’t kill us to talk a little bit!” It is about 2-3 exchanges and then you can go to the point of the meeting or a conversation. Sometimes it’s just about the exchange and that’s enough: especially when you are a Rebel in a base yourself, you’ll enjoy the conversation itself if it’s led that way.   Nurturative Channel   Last but not least: Harmonizer and their preferred nurturative channel. Nurturative channel is all about seeing a person, feeding their recognition of person need. Harmonizers needs to be seen, as an important part of a team, community or other relationship. Sometimes it’s enough to say: “Thank you for being here. I know that recently it’s been crazy busy and hard, so I really appreciate you finding time to talk.”  The key thing here is to give a positive, nurturing recognition of a person, making them visible and important. In the world of endless task lists, constant rush and not

Read More »
Leadership

Team Conflict: Is It Always a Bad Thing?

When we hear “conflict”, we think “trouble”. When we hear “conflict”, we think “dysfunctional team”, where communication doesn’t work, and people have personal issues. Or when we hear “conflict”, we think that leader doesn’t know how to lead his/her team successfully. Is that really true? Why are we so scared of a conflict? What is the worst thing that can happen when there is a conflict in the team? What kind of experiences we have with the conflict that make us think and behave in a certain way when one appears? Why do we avoid conflict? The real question should be: why do we avoid doing things in overall? In the area of conflicts, it’s extremely visible: we avoid it, because we burned ourselves once or twice. Based on that we make this strategy to not get involved in any kind of “risky” situation: so, we sit quiet and just focus on living through another day. Is it really the best option we can get? When a lack of conflict is dysfunctional, not the other way around? One of the biggest experts of team development and leadership, Patrick Lencioni, years ago wrote a book “5 Disfunctions of a Team”. It is a really short story (doesn’t even look like a personal/professional development book), yet it’s very powerful. And there is one part that stopped me when I first read it: Lencioni says that one of the dysfunctions of a team is a fear of conflict. What? (On the chart on the left-hand side there are definitions of all disfunctions and on the right-hand side there are solutions, that answer the questions: what is the best thing we can do here for our teams?) If we stick to our old believe that a conflict is something negative and destructive – that it ruins the trust and good atmosphere in the team, how is it possible that it’s actually the other way around? When we avoid conflict, not speaking up and be open about what do we really think, feel, or observe in the workplace, there is a huge risk of not being as effective and efficient as possible. It’s also short sided: if we are not sharing it now, it’s going to backfire in the future. So, at the end of the day, it will bring worse result than we imagine now. What’s even worse, people probably will talk behind other colleagues’ or leader’s backs, and not saying anything out loud. We can imagine that it will bring even worse outcomes, like really ruining the atmosphere, creating space for psychological games and in a consequence: lack of trust. The fear of conflict can be one of the biggest barriers that will stop people from growth, thrive and being the best versions of themselves in a workplace. What can we do to change this mindset? How can we use conflict that nourishes our team? The key thing to understand is that a certain kind conflict is something that we can use. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t, it really depends on what we are dealing with. There are 2 categories of conflicts, I call them functional and dysfunctional. What can we do with the dysfunctional conflicts? First and foremost: we need to map and name correctly which conflict is the real one in the situation we are dealing with. Without that, even the most beautiful strategy is not going to work, because we are going to answer to the wrong need. We’ll get frustrated and use all our energy badly. Focus on investigating will bring the best results, since then the solutions will be to the point: it’s more than certain that it’s worth investing time in this process. The bottom line The conflict is a huge, hairy, and scary thing that we often have very strong convictions about. We avoid it, by staying low, don’t speak up to not get into any confrontation. We do it because we don’t want to get hurt, expose ourselves to bad emotions, stress or feeling that we do not belong. Perfectly natural, there is nothing to be ashamed of. When we make a mindset shift: from fixed (focused on avoiding conflict) to a growth one, where we take into consideration that the conflict can be good for us, nourishing and interesting, we can gain more than we think. With remembering about having a good intention, being in OK-OK zone and with a goal of creating something extraordinary as a consequence of a passionate discussion, we can achieve the outcome that won’t be possible to achieve on our own. It puts old, good conflict in a completely new light. I believe it’s worth trying if it fits.

Read More »