Square Shooters

I was struck by the dialogue in the book "The Gate House" by the great Nelson DeMille, a story of great characters cloaked in a murder mystery/love story. I wasn't sure at the time what DeMille did or how he did it, but the characters seemed to communicate with each other key messages about possibilities, opportunities and risks. His main character, attorney John Sutter, finds himself in regular conversations with FBI special agent Mancuso about aspects of their interactions and relationships with some very dangerous mob types.

While this column is not a book review, I do recommend this (or anything) by Nelson DeMille wholeheartedly. This particular book is a long tome, but the more he went on, the better I understood the main characters, and the more interested I became in their fates.

So, Sutter and Mancuso talk regularly with the filter of some specific constraints in place. Mancuso is actively investigating the bad guys, and obvious needs for secrecy and former entanglements too numerous to mention complicate what these two are able to say to each other - Mancuso can't tell Sutter everything, but at the same time, he does not want him to get murdered. But they manage to make clear the important messages; on top of that, they also develop respect and a certain level of friendship. Their communication is a combination of very direct messages - telling it like it is - and hints and nuances that contained critical information (lives were at stake).

I was struck by these patterns for two reasons. One - a very wise (but often unpopular) manager once told me "there are two types of communicators, direct and indirect, and you follow the indirect model. Neither method is right or wrong; they are just different." Two - these characters-in-a-novel nuanced and hinted their way through some minefields, and I personally lack any ability to understand, interpret, recognize or process nuance. I am very comfortable calling this a guy thing.

The nuance/male/female/mars/venus thing sent me scrambling around the internet looking for clues. Among the male's many noted shortcomings, I assume that inability to understand the subtext of communication is on the the list. Is there scientific evidence? Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090130084155.htm) writes about a study of men and women speed dating - can the opposite sex give the right signals, and interpret the signals given? As the lead author says: "How people talk might convey more than what they say." The researchers expected women to be better judges - but they were not. The daters were in Germany, and the judgers were in Indiana, so they cleverly configured this so that the words could not be used for judgement. Both sexes were equally good (or bad) at interpretation.

Which leads me back to my own inability to interpret nuance - I guess I have to find another excuse. But I digress...

When informed by my boss (this was in 1996) about my communication style was "different", I immediately did what any good employee would do. I assumed that she meant "change this style immediately, you fool!" See how I made the nuanced leap from "I'm OK; You're OK" to "You Have to Change Your Evil Ways, Baby?" Perhaps, I was limited by my inability to understand a hint; or perhaps, I really did understand the hint correctly. Over the intervening years, it did serve me as good advice to keep rattling around in my brain - what is the right style to use for this challenge I am facing? Be direct - shoot from the hip? Or fall back into a more natural pattern?

What is the relevance of this to current events? I have spent a the last few months in a fog at work because I clearly was not understanding what was going on, what was expected of me, etc. When I finally received a very direct message about what was going on, I was delighted. The message happened to be: "we don't want you to work here anymore" - obviously not a welcome message. Nevertheless, I was delighted. Someone explained to me what is going on. Wahoo!

Over the next two weeks, I have even been able to interpret some of the nuance of the message. For multiple reasons, some explainable only by Dilbert and some by an attorney, companies often can't tell you directly why they are removing you from their ranks. I was told that "my position was being eliminated". As any red-blooded employee-type at an American corporation would, I interpreted this message very personally as "you aren't good enough to work here." What I have come to understand is that the message was really "your position is being eliminated" as the company, like all companies these days, looks to run a tight ship. Being tossed overboard might not be my preferred method to contribute to this effort, but the fact is that there are some (small but serviceable) life preservers tossed over as well.

Where were the square shooters with their direct communication in the previous months, when the fog seemed as dense as mud? I don't know. When I look in my mirror, I certainly see that I could have done better. When Sutter and Mancuso talk, they keep at it until they have made clear to each other what needs to be known. That seems to be where I missed out. I don't believe that my trip back in the time machine where I tell it like it is and perform Obama-like feats of listening and messaging would lead to a different outcome. I think it might actually hasten the outcome - but given its inevitability, that might be OK. I might have still wound up in the lifeboat, but the waters might not be so choppy!