A520.3.5.RB_LarsonKurt, Supportive Communication

Create a blog posting describing how you can integrate supportive communication in your present position and describe the expected outcomes that may result from your efforts.

There are eight attributes to supportive communication.

1. Congruent – According to the text, congruence is communicated for precisely both verbally and non-verbally what is actually thought and felt.

Not incongruence – is a direct mismatch between what an individual is experiencing and what they are aware of, and more closely related to communication and the mismatch between what one thinks and feels and what is communicated.

In my work place, congruence would be an open invitation toward an individual(s) taking a pot shot at ones emotions, once this would occur, an individual would no longer be able to display dissatisfaction or feelings. Not incongruence is the definite order of the day for work place survival through a direct mismatch of what is felt vs. what is displayed are 180⁰ apart. Shame but that is the way it is and not many in my work place (including myself,) wish to die on that hill.

2. Descriptive, Not Evaluative – Considering my position of Aviation Safety this is a constant struggle in my organization. There are times I have trouble bringing an issue to a branch supervisor’s attention, as the dynamics of our organization are so varying between branches that it can at times be hypocritical in the methods I must utilize just to approach and not offend. I make it a point to let individuals know that what I do is an audit of the system, its policies and procedures and not of the people… easier said than done.

3. Problem–Oriented, Not Person-Oriented – As previously stated I utilize Problem–Oriented communication vs. Not Person-Oriented communication. One would be lead to believe that, that would be a proactive approach to pursue in the quest to identify and recommend changes to policy, procedures and methods.  Considering the previously stated dynamics of my organization, I am basically dammed if I do… and dammed if I don’t.

4. Validating, Not Invalidating – This is often a touchy subject in the field of aviation. From Quality Assurance to Safety to Aviation Safety Inspectors, all have a duty to audit and report non conformances to regulations, policies and procedures, methods and practices. By the very nature of our positions, we are dictated to in-fact validate the previously mentioned observations. The overall safety of the National Air Space (NAS) is predicated upon individual such as myself accomplishing our due diligence and reporting problems with recommended solutions. The issue of using analytical analysis often portrays an untrue superiority position on the part of the recipient. If we as aviation professionals were remiss in our appointed duties because of self-esteem or inferiority issues that others may possess.

5. Specific–Not Global – In my position of aviation safety I often see a non-conforming condition or procedure. If it is not of what I would call a dire need to correct on the spot, I might observe it for a moment and analyze just how it could be improved vs. a knee jerk reaction. I may ask the individual(s) what drives then to preform the specific function in the manner they are, chances are, the might not be aware of a potentially unsafe condition, or, there is an inhibitor keeping them from preforming the task in a more safe manner. I may recommend tailoring the task or make a formal recommendation later. Either way, I made a commitment to myself long ago to never forget where I came from and to always give the technician the benefit of the doubt first.

6. Conjunctive, Not Disjunctive – As a Subcommittee Chair I have an opportunity to persuade members and interested parties why our committee should take a particular stance or position on a topic. My fellow committee chairs and I use Roberts Rule of Order to facilitate a well-planned meeting and stay on focus with the topic at hand. I also utilize the teachings of Toastmasters of which I am a member. I maintain clarity of purpose in my discussions, I adapt myself to my audience, and I stay on message and do not abuse the opportunity to speak. And finally, I remember that my ideas and recommendations are just that and are not superior to others. And finally, unlike the chapter in the text suggests… I almost always refrain from using “umm” or “aaah” in my discussions and speeches. It is taboo in the Toastmasters International organization.

7. Owned, Not Disowned – I try to think when I communicate with an individual or group of individuals, that I am speaking in terms how a resume might sound, if I were reading it out loud. I speak in singular terms and to my audience directly, and not like TV interviews, where the person is speaking to some unknown and unseen individual off screen. I personally consider that to be rude and impolite behavior.

8. Supportive Listening, Not One-Way Listening – As an acknowledged “type A” personality, I am generally several steps ahead of the person whom is speaking to me. I have to constantly remind myself to listen to them and not judge their point until they have finished and there is time for rebuttal. I do not have a problem with finishing their sentences and that has never been a problem for me. I do make it a point to be the best listener that I can, which is not an easy thing to accomplish at times considering the locality of conversations and distractions. Our operation makes it a policy to let personnel have their say, and the ability to speak-up if something is observed that could have consequences upon our operation or safety. We acknowledge that everyone is part of the operation and should have an equal say and an equal ability to be heard.