Managing Perceptions as a Leader (Pt. 3)

No leader can neglect the challenge of managing people’s perceptions. It is not primarily the employee or volunteer who is responsible for accurate communication; that is the leader’s responsibility.

So what can a leader do? How can I prevent inaccurate perceptions and destructive reactions? The research suggests a broad and diverse array of actions.

1. Take responsibility for how your words and actions are perceived. Personal performance coach Joe Matthews suggests that new results must stem from new actions:

If you wish to create a new result, you must first design a new action. Albert Einstein said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again, expecting a different result." King Solomon said, "As a dog returns to its vomit, a fool returns to his folly." If you don't like your results in a given area of your work or life, pay careful attention to what you are now doing. Then cut it out. Jesus said, "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away."

It is frustrating to deal with misunderstandings and misperceptions as a leader, but the wise leader will take it upon himself or herself to use search for and find new ways to communicate, ways that will prevent or reduce such problems in the future.

2. Make sure you know the people you lead. As we discussed in the previous posts on this subject, peoples’ needs and desires shape their perceptions. Therefore, it is incumbent on a leader to take the time and trouble to get to know the people he or she is leading and hopes to communicate to. What are they motivated by? What might their concerns be? How are they likely to react? Do they have enough background to rightly assimilate the information you hope to impart? Are you relying on a purely cognitive approach, or have you given thought to the motivations and emotions of your listeners?

3. Listen to rumors. I hate rumors and gossip. My natural tendency is to ignore them. But Dr. Robbins advises differently:

Rumors can be a major distraction for employees….Studies have found that rumors emerge as a response to situations that are important to us, where there is ambiguity, and under conditions that arouse anxiety….Astute managers acknowledge the existence of the grapevine and use it in beneficial ways. They use it to identify issues that employees consider important and that are likely to create anxiety. They view it as both a filter and feedback mechanism by highlighting issues that employees consider relevant….Managers should monitor grapevine patterns and observe which individuals are interested in what issues and who is likely to actively pass rumors along. In addition, managers need to reduce the negative consequences that rumors can create. If you come across an active rumor and think it has the potential to be destructive, consider how you might lessen its impact by improving organizational communication.

One of the most effective means of minimizing destructive gossip and rumor is to speak directly with the person or persons who are spreading it. This isn't always possible, and it should always be done gently but firmly. Sometimes, however, it can often help people who are thus confronted remember to be more careful about such things in the future.

4. Make redundancy part of the communications strategy. Doug Turner, consultant and president of RSI Consulting, wrote the following in the context of pastors and church leaders casting vision regarding church stewardship, but it is nonetheless wise counsel pertaining to communication in general:

Churches often struggle because redundancy is not part of their communication strategy. In other words, communicating an update on the ministry requires so much more than one announcement or newsletter article.

Too often, I make the mistake of expecting people to “catch” a message on the first (or second) time around. But that seldom (if ever) happens. Communication becomes more effective as it is repeated, preferably in multiple forms and via multiple media.

5. Choose communications channels intentionally and wisely.Obviously, some communications tools are better than others. Robbins points out:

Evidence indicates that channels differ in their capacity to convey information. Some are rich in that they have the ability to (1) handle multiple cues simultaneously, (2) facilitate rapid feedback, and (3) be very personal. Othera re lean in that they score low on these three factors. For instance, face-to-face talk scores highest in channel richness because it provides for the maximum amount of information to be transmitted during a communication episode. That is, it offers multiple information cues (words, postures, facial expressions, gestures, intonations), immediate feedback (both verbal and nonverbal), and the personal touch of “being there.” The telephone is another rich channel but less so than face-to-face communication. Impersonal written media such as bulletins and general reports rate low in richness. Email, instant messaging, and memos fall somewhere in between.

The choice of one channel over another should be determined by whether the message is routine or nonroutine….Managers…can communicate nonroutine messages effectively only by selecting rich channels.

6. Pay constant attention to sound communication techniques. Kenneth Gangel lists eight suggestions for improving communication. The wisdom of these principles should be even more obvious in light of the contributing factors mentioned above:

Avoid verbal instructions alone. Use written memos or e-mail to reinforce and clarify oral communication whenever possible.

Use informal settings to facilitate dialogue. Try to break down the barrier that sometimes exists between a leader and the team.

Use careful planning before any group presentation. A pastor confronting the board with a building project, for example, should have carefully thought through how he will make the presentation, what possible questions might be raised, and how he will answer them.

Try to speak to small groups whenever possible. We can enhance good audience contact by limiting the size of the group.

Know the audience. Understand your team and speak directly to them.

Know your subject matter well. Do not attempt to bluff your way through a presentation.

Attempt to establish rapport with your people. Spend time with them; know and understand their problems and needs; and demonstrate interest and Christian love toward them as persons.

Be sincere. Genuine sincerity can cover and atone for a multitude of technical errors.

Some of us do these things intentionally, even instinctively, in our preaching ministry...but too often we neglect them in other communication.

7. Communicate to address not only cognition, but also motivational and emotional processes.This is the biggest "takeaway" from the research, for me. I need to get better at doing more than simply sharing information on a cognitive level. Learn to address people’s needs, desires, fears, and hopes. Don't assume that just because you hear and process information cognitively, everyone else does.

8. Rely on feedback to gauge the effectiveness of your communication, and the recipient’s understanding. Donald P. Ely, a leading thinker in instructional technology, points out:

The degree of success which a given message has achieved can be determined by feedback. Feedback provides a teacher with information concerning his success in accomplishing his objective. The feedback may be covert or overt. A perceptive question stemming from the message is one of the simplest examples of feedback. The learner who asks a pertinent question indicates his degree of understanding. Most feedback is more complex, particularly in the case of value judgments and attitude changes which may not be as easy to process. A teacher should attempt to elicit feedback to determine how well he is achieving his purpose.

Months ago, after running into (seemingly) one misperception after another, I started the practice of frequently concluding a dialogue with the questions, “What have you heard me to say during our time together?” and “Do you feel confident that I’ve listened to you, and heard what you’ve had to say?” This seems to have had an immediate and marked effect on the effectiveness of my communication.

Obviously, it is impossible to manage people’s perceptions with 100% accuracy. Even 80% or 90% may be unrealistic. But It should be realistic for any leader to vastly improve his or her effectiveness in this area. There will probably always be some who will—for any number of reasons—receive a message in ways the leader never intended. But I hope that will become rarer...as I become better at communicating so as to anticipate and shape perceptions.

Managing Perceptions as a Leader (Pt. 2)

Yesterday, I began a three-part post on how to manage perceptions as a leader. I've been amazed on occasion at how people (even those I've known and loved for a long time) perceive me and my actions, as well as those of other people, and so have wanted for some time to learn more about how (and why) perceptions are formed, so that I might become a more effective leader by anticipating and shaping people's perceptions.

I've learned that, for whatever reason, I have long tended to view leadership and communication as a basically simple, linear process, I've learned--by experience and by research--that these things are far from simple or linear. The interplay between communication and perception involves multiple interactions, behaviors, and considerations that may not be immediately or easily apparent to a leader.

What is a leader to do, then? How can a leader—and a Christian leader, in particular—view and manage perceptions in such a way as to prevent confusion, conflict, and failure in an organization?

Communication between two individuals is never a simple and straightforward sharing of cognitive information; much less is communication in and to groups as simple as most leaders think. Research indicates multiple factors that contribute to create distance between what a leader or communicator intends and what a perceiver receives.

1. Over-reliance on Cognition. Manuel London, Ph.D., associate dean at the State University of New York’s College of Business (Stonybrook), helpfully identifies a long-standing over-reliance on cognition as an impediment:

[Recent] discoveries have moved the field away from thinking about person perception as rational, information-driven processes (referred to as "cold" cognition), toward considering the influence of motivational and affective processes or "hot" cognition (Zajonc, 1980). Indeed, it is now evident that prescribed models of social judgment (e.g., Cooper, 1981; Lord, 1985) are, at best, heuristics. But because researchers were guided by these models for so long, they assumed more cognitive-based explanations for the outcomes of person perception than warranted.

In other words, it is a mistake for a leader to expect listeners or followers to react with “cold” cognition to his or her communication, in whatever form. In fact, it may be more accurate to expect that the greater part of a person’s perception will stem from “hot cognition” (which will be defined shortly) and even non-cognitive sources.

2. Over-abundance of information. Donald E. Broadbent, the experimental psychologist and pioneer of cognitive psychology, showed in his book Perception and Communication that much difficulty arises from communicators presenting (consciously or unconsciously) multiple messages to listeners or readers simultaneously. He says:

1. Some central, rather than sensory, factors are involved when two messages are presented to the ears at the same time.
2. The effects vary with the number of possible messages that might have arrived and from which the actual ones are chosen (i.e., the rate at which information is arriving is important).
3. When some information must be discarded, it is not discarded at random. Thus if some of the material is irrelevant it is better for it to come from a different place from the relevant material, or to be louder or softer, or to have different frequency characteristics: or to be on the eye instead of the ear.

“What seems to be impossible,” he concludes, “on the basis of the considerable body of evidence we have examined, is to handle more than a critical amount of information in a given time.” Therefore, one could reasonably expect, if an attempt is made to share information in a disjointed or overlapping manner, that the listener or reader’s perception could well be at variance with the communicator’s intentions.

3. Sin patterns. Ken Sande, president and founder of Peacemaker Ministries (www.peacemaker.net) posits the possibility that critical judgments of a speaker, writer, or leader’s communication may be attributable to the sin that infects all humanity (and, likewise, in the case of critical judgments on the part of the leader toward the hearers or readers). He writes:

When Adam sinned, he corrupted the entire human race. He passed on to each of us an inherent tendency to sin, which includes a natural inclination towards mistaken, negative judgments. This inclination is revealed throughout the Bible. The Old Testament offers many examples:
• After the Israelites conquered the promised land, the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh returned to their allotted land and built an altar by the Jordan. When the other tribes heard about the altar, they assumed the worst and rashly assembled their troops to go to war against their brothers. Fortunately, before a battle began, those who had built the altar were able to explain its legitimate purpose and avoid bloodshed. (Joshua 22:10-34)
• In 1 Samuel, we read how the high priest made a hasty, critical judgment. When Eli saw Hannah praying in the temple, moving her lips but making no sound, he concluded that she was drunk. Only after harshly confronting her did he learn that she was communing with the Lord in a way that put Eli to shame. (1:12-17)
• Even King David made critical judgments. When he fled from his son Absalom, a man named Ziba brought David a critical report regarding Saul’s son, Mephibosheth, saying that he had turned against King David. Without waiting to hear Mephibosheth’s side of the story, David passed judgment against this innocent man and turned all of his property over to a false witness. (2 Sam. 16:1-4; 19:24-30)

The New Testament also portrays this pattern of making critical judgments.
• When Jesus was doing miracles and healing the blind, the Pharisees stubbornly closed their eyes to the good he was doing and interpreted his actions in the worst possible way, saying that he was actually serving the devil. (Matt. 12:22-24)
• In Acts 21:26-29, we see that Paul meticulously followed all of the Jewish customs as he prepared to come into the temple. Even so, the Jews assumed the worst, jumping to the conclusion that he had defiled the temple and should be stoned.
• As 1 Corinthians 10-11 reveals, the Apostle Paul repeatedly was condemned falsely, not only by the Jews, but also by people from within the Christian community. Like many church leaders today, he learned the hard lesson that servants of the Lord are often misunderstood, criticized, and judged by the very people they are trying to serve.

But we don’t need to look back thousands of years to see people making critical judgments of others. Just think how easily we ourselves believe the worst about others’ motives or actions.
• If someone delays answering a letter or fulfilling a commitment, we assume too easily that he is avoiding us or evading his responsibilities. Could it be that he’s been in the hospital recovering from a serious accident? Could he be overwhelmed by other responsibilities?
• If our children do not complete their chores on time, we conclude that they are being disobedient. Could it be that they are secretly wrapping a special present for their mom’s birthday? Could they have gotten distracted, and a simple reminder would help?
• If an employer fails to give us a raise, we assume she is unappreciative or greedy. Could she be struggling to keep the business going in the face of increasing competition and operating costs?
• If someone at church seems unfriendly, we assume she is proud or aloof. Could it be that she feels awkward and unsure of herself, and is hoping someone will reach out to her?
• If the elders do not accept a proposal we make, we may conclude that they are narrow-minded and do not understand or appreciate our opinions or needs. Could it be that God is leading them to give priority to a different ministry?
• If church members raise questions about policies or new programs, church leaders may conclude that the members are stubbornly unwilling to consider new ideas or stretch themselves to grow. They may even be labeled as rebellious troublemakers. Could it be that they have legitimate insights and concerns that deserve a careful hearing?

4. Bias and prejudice.The prevalence of bias and prejudice in the human heart and mind is also a potential source of inaccurate perceptions or interpretations. Hastorf and Cantril (1954) famously studied perceptions of a Princeton-Dartmouth football game; viewers at Princeton saw Dartmouth players commit more rule violations, and viewers at Dartmouth saw an abundance of penalties on the Princeton side. A person’s predilection toward certain loyalties, attitudes, beliefs, personalities, habits, etc., will affect his or her perception, often imperceptibly.

The Bible says, “Man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). Every human perception is subject to some bias or prejudice, both generally (about a certain race or class of people, for example) and specifically (about an individual or an organization). These biases and prejudices may have some basis in reality, but cannot be fully knowledgeable, as God’s judgment is.

5. Cultural differences. A team of Canadian and Japanese researchers have recently published studied how eastern and western cultures assess situations very differently:

Across two studies, participants viewed images, each of which consisted of one centre model and four background models in each image. The researchers manipulated the facial emotion (happy, angry, sad) in the centre or background models and asked the participants to determine the dominant emotion of the centre figure.
The majority of Japanese participants (72%) reported that their judgments of the centre person's emotions were influenced by the emotions of the background figures, while most North Americans (also 72%) reported they were not influenced by the background figures at all.

Dr. Stephen P. Robbins, a prolific and best-selling textbook author in the areas of management and organizational behavior, states it succinctly: “Culture…defines what’s acceptable to subordinates.” This extends beyond the cultural differences between east and west, or nationalities. It applies also to cultural differences between faith background, blue collar versus white collar, etc.

6. Personalities, power plays, perspectives, and purpose. Mike Anthony (quoted in Kenneth Gangel’s book, Team Leadership in Christian Ministry), identifies four causes of conflict in churches. Inasmuch as conflict often arises from poor communication, miscommunication, or misperception, these may also be useful as possible contributing causes to a gap between intentions and perceptions. Anthony writes:

In the eyes of most pastors and board members, there seem to be as many sources of church conflict as there are people in the congregation. The longer I am in the ministry, the more I discover! In speaking with pastors and board members over the years, I have identified a few causes of strife common in most churches: personalities, power plays, perspective, and purpose.

7. Motivation.Dr. Dan Burrell, professor at Liberty University and Boston Baptist College, defined motivation in the context of leadership:

Motivation is recognizing and utilizing the inner motives (drives or needs) of a person to get him to want to do what needs to be done. The leader should recognize that there is a cause (usually an identifiable one) for the way people think and act. People act the way they do because of a cause, and good leaders will seek to understand the cause-effect relationship behind the actions of people. The causes for actions will be based on a person’s value system, needs, and goals.

As I think about it, much of the miscommunication I have engaged in and contributed to may be attributable to a failure to adequately connect with the inner motives of the person or persons I was trying to lead. London’s work, cited above, goes into great detail on the subject of motivation as one example of “hot cognition”:

Given the pragmatic nature of person perception, the cognitive structures, processes, and strategies used by the motivated tactician are thought to depend on his or her motives in relationship to the situation. Two general motivational states relevant to social perception in applied contexts include those that deal with the costs of being indecisive (expectancy-oriented motives) and those that deal with the costs of being wrong (accuracy-oriented motives; see Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Either of these stems from forces in the environment that motivate perceivers to seek to make accurate or "quick and dirty" decisions.

London goes on to identify motives that make salient the costs of being indecisive and motives that make salient the costs of being wrong. In the case of the former, he says, “In general, the costs of indecision increase whenever resources are limited. Here people will engage in more cursory, superficial processing in which "information search is curtailed, inconsistencies are ignored or seen as affirming, and snap judgments are justified" (Fiske, 1993, p. 175) and adds that “Basic research suggests that when the information processing environment reaches a certain level of difficulty, social perceivers are likely to rely on tools, such as stereotypes, in their "cognitive toolbox" (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991; Macrae et al., 1994).

8. Emotion. London cites Forgas (1991) and Kunda (1999) in stating that people’s perceptions will also be “heated up” by their emotions. A person’s perception may be a partial reflection of his or her mood at the time; people generally perceive things more positively when they are in a good mood and more negatively when they are in a bad mood.
London also identifies four “interpersonal and social factors” that may influence a person’s perception. He lists:

1. History of the relationship (e.g., between the communicator and the perceiver);
2. Similarity of target and perceiver (i.e., the degree to which the perceiver identifies and feels affinity with the target of the communication);
3. Status, power, and hierarchy (London suggests that “individuals of lower status or in a subordinate position will be more diligent in their information processing”);
4. Accountability (London states, “Being accountable to a third party, or having to justify a decision, also causes perceivers to process information more carefully”).

Obviously, multiple and varied factors may contribute to create distance between what a leader or communicator intends and what a perceiver receives. It should also be clear that no leader can reasonably expect to navigate the challenges and difficulties of managing the perceptions of others with one hundred percent effectiveness.

But I hope that an awareness of the contributing factors can at least help reduce misunderstanding and misperception between us and the people we lead. If not...well, never mind.

And, while I'm sorry this post has gone on so long, I think I can be a little more concise tomorrow, when I share eight ways I hope to do better at managing perceptions in the future.

Managing Perceptions as a Leader (Pt. 1)

A fellow pastor recently related to me a series of events that had surprised and disheartened him. He has been laboring two years in a small-town church, which has more than doubled in size in that time. His relationship with the trustees, church council, and flock had been thoroughly cooperative and pleasant. However, recently, he discerned that people were upset with him, and when he inquired why, he learned that a few of his actions and comments, while utterly innocuous to his mind, had been the cause of offense and resentment among a small but vocal group in the church.

Another pastor friend told a similarly frustrating tale. Two years ago, he took over a nearly dead church that had less than a dozen congregants remaining, and has since seen the attendance in worship climb into the thirties. He has been working with the elders to increase the church’s outreach into the community and find ways to attract a younger demographic (the church’s median age when he arrived was over seventy-five years of age). Recently, he has been dismayed to learn that his efforts have been interpreted as a lack of care for the current members, “who built this church and have remained faithful all these years.”

It is often said that "perception is reality." Indeed, most leaders can attest that once a person—or a handful of people—come to think and convince each other of a thing, then whether it is true or not becomes irrelevant; it becomes, at least in some ways, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Take a pastor who cares deeply for the flock, spends himself (or herself) tirelessly for them, prays passionately, sacrifices, strives, and strains in a hundred different ways for the benefit of the people. But along comes a person who says, "The pastor doesn't care." All it takes is for a handful of folks to begin believing that lie, and soon the pastor's actions come to be viewed suspiciously at first and conclusively at last. He takes a day off to spend with his family—“and couldn't be bothered to visit Edna in the hospital." He refers a distraught parishioner to a counselor—“rather than taking the time himself." And on it goes, until the truth or falsity of the perception is irrelevant, at least to people who—for any number of reasons—are inclined to believe the thing.

So what can a leader do? What might those pastors have done to prevent inaccurate perceptions and destructive reactions? As one who has been frequently befuddled by people’s perceptions of me and my actions, it’s a question I’ve pondered for a while. So tomorrow, I will share eight possible contributing factors to misunderstanding and misperception, and then Friday I will suggest eight ways I hope to avoid such misperception in the future.

The How and the Why

Donald Miller is always thought-provoking, and this recent post from his blog is no exception:

I’m not a big fan of the “there are only two kinds of people” breakdown of humanity, and yet in the past few years, I’ve found myself wondering if, well, there are only two kinds of people. I’m not talking about people who either like Neil Diamond or don’t, I’m talking about How and Why thinkers. Let me explain:

We all live life asking questions, questions about how to get ahead, how to make life more meaningful, questions about how to survive or help people survive. The question how is an American question, and it rests on the presupposition that we know what life is really about.

Some friends and I were walking down the street in Vancouver, BC last week and I stopped our group and asked them to look around and count the ads that they noticed. We were downtown in a major shopping district, and even though we could see for blocks, we found only two billboards or posters advertising stuff. If we’d been across the border in the states, we’d have counted, perhaps, hundreds. The difference was striking.

Advertising is part of the reason we have become a how culture. Commercials make us think we need things, and then the dominant question (thus the story we end up living) is about how we get what we think we are missing, so we wake up every morning wondering how we are going to get ahead, how we are going to get paid and so forth.

The problem Christians face is the Bible is not attempting to answer how questions. And if it is, it’s a terribly written book and not practical in any way in terms of addressing how to succeed, how to get married, how to be more sexy, how to lose weight, how to organize your finances or how to build a business. Instead, the Bible is a why book. The Bible is answering much larger questions: Why do we exist, why do we not feel loved, why is there pain in the world, why has God left us and so forth. Are there exceptions? Sure. The Proverbs has some wisdom on how to live, and there are other examples, but they are few.

So the question is, are you trying to answer small questions with your life or big questions? If you are trying to answer small questions (how do I turn earth into heaven because there is no greater epic for me) then the Bible fails. But if you are trying to answer larger questions (all of this will someday go away, and life is short, so what is really important in light of this) then the Bible is a book for you.

American culture is a how culture. We ask almost exclusively how questions, because our commercialized culture is not interested in why. If we really started asking why questions, our entire economy would collapse, and honestly, we wouldn’t care because once we answered the why questions, we wouldn’t want all that stuff in the first place.

So what does the Bible say to the Average American? Among other things, it says this: You are asking the wrong questions.

I agree, I think, but only to a point. I agree that American culture (and Americans, in general) is obsessed with "How" and relatively unconcerned with "Why." But I agree much less that the Bible is not attempting to answer how questions. I think it often is....but in ways we're not accustomed to. It doesn't offer many how-to checklists and step-by-step instructions. Those are in there, but they're not very frequent or prominent. The Bible's answers to "how" are usually far more subtle, even ironic...but also impactful. Consider 1 Corinthians 10, where we are told that many of the historical and biographical accounts are offered to us as examples. Sure, they're more in the category of "how NOT to" set our hearts on evil things, etc. But "how NOT to" does answer the question, "How?"

Still, I think Miller's basic point is apt. In fact, I might take it even further. The Bible seems less concerned with "how" than "why"....and far MORE concerned with "Who" (or "Whom," if you like).

The Butterfly Effect

Andy Andrews's book, The Butterfly Effect: How Your Life Matters, packs a powerful punch in a petite package.

The book is a beautifully designed presentation of Andrews's most requested story when he speaks (which he does more than 100 times a year). It tells of a decision one person made over a hundred years ago that still affects YOUR life today, and memorably shows the reader how every life matters, and how the decisions we make today are far more influential than any of us dream.

Included in the purchase of this book is a link to a nine-minute video of Andrews telling this inspirational story to a live audience. The Butterfly Effect is an ideal (and affordable) gift for anyone who needs to know that his or her life matters, and that his or her decisions are important. Come to think of it, that's everybody.

This book was provided for review by the publisher, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Church of the Week: Garden Grove Community Church, Los Angeles, CA

Popularly known as "The Crystal Cathedral," Garden Grove Community Church was founded by "The Hour of Power" televangelist Rev. Dr. Robert H. Schuller (who started out with a "drive-in" church located in an actual, old drive-in movie theater) and his wife Arvella. The striking glass-and-steel structure was designed by architect Philip Johnson.

While I've never attended a worship service here, I did have the privilege of visiting in 1994 or thereabouts for several days of meetings related to a writing project.

The Crystal Cathedral is shaped like a giant four-pointed crystal star, with the main "cathedral" rising 12 stories above the ground, featuring a mirror-like exterior composed of some 12,000 panes of glass. From inside, the transparent glass lets in the sunlight and sky to dazzling effect.

The church also boasts one of the largest pipe organs in the world, called the Hazel Wright Pipe Organ, with 5 consoles controlling 270 ranks, 31 digital ranks, and more than 16,000 pipes.