Communication 1: So What?

Many of us dread the required technical communications courses in engineering school, reinforcing the stereotype of engineers as introverted, language-challenged techno-nerds. That’s unfortunate, because good speaking and writing are just as essential to an engineer’s career as solid technical skills.

The proof comes in two forms – complaints from employers that new graduates often lack good communication skills, suggesting that our coursework isn’t producing a lasting improvement; and testimony from practicing engineers like me who have struggled to become good communicators out of necessity. “So what?”: You need good communication skills for a successful career.

Good communication is needed for the obvious situations – giving a presentation or preparing a report – but also when explaining an issue to a supervisor, convincing a client, and giving instructions to a subordinate. Just one example: I set up 10-day continuous experiment that required laboratory technicians to adjust a rheostat hourly to regulate an electric pump’s speed. They all nodded when I explained what to do, read the instruction sheet to them, and explicitly told them to NOT adjust the pipe valve, because that would cause the pump to overheat. My communication must have been flawed, because they burned up three pumps in the first two days. Only after MY boss George shouted, snarled, dangled ruined pumps in front of them, and threatened to fire the next person who screwed up did they follow the instructions. He answered the “so what?” question for them. Lesson learned.

The first rule of good technical communication is to know your audience: who are you speaking to or writing for? It’s obvious that communication with a group of elementary school students during Engineers’ Week will differ from a technical conference audience of our peers, which will differ from a design presentation to a client. You MUST tailor every aspect of communication to your audience. Example: We invited an upper level EPA official to  speak to the Northern Gulf Institute conference and she explained to our engineers and scientists that the southeastern U.S. has water quality problems, patiently telling us that DO was short for dissolved oxygen. Every person in that room knew that, and knew the processes and problems better than she did. We didn’t need or want her naïve views on the challenges we faced. We wanted to hear what EPA was planning to do about those challenges and how it might affect our work.

The second rule is to understand your audience’s “so what?” If all they care about is their personal safety during an earthquake, they won’t care about the innovative structural analysis methods that you are so passionate about. You can inflict some education on them but only if you show them how their interests are affected.

For presentations to audiences of unknown background, such as civic groups, it helps to ask a group representative for advice before you prepare your talk. Then, asking your audience a few questions at the beginning can zero in on their preferences and even their mood. I once gave a speech to a business club and was baffled by their refusal to participate or even pretend to listen. Later I learned that in the business meeting to follow my talk they were going to vote on a power struggle between competing cliques. I could have skipped most of my speech and all of my jokes and no one would have noticed.

Discussions, either one-on-one or in small groups, requires both knowledge of the individuals’ technical background and an understanding of their concerns – their “so what.” I cannot overemphasize the importance of listening, sometimes even Active Listening in which you repeat what the person just said. For example, say, “Do I understand correctly that you believe X?” where the X is a verbatim repetition of what they said. (Not a paraphrase.) Only when you understand their concerns and satisfy their need to be heard can you expect them to give your ideas a fair hearing.

Next up: Speak or Die?

Dress for Staying Alive

Jordan looked good when he showed up for work that morning in 1975. He wore dark blue bell-bottom pants, a fluffy purple shirt, and stacked heel boots. His co-workers complimented him on his modern look. I sent him away.

Jordan’s clothing was perfect for an evening under a disco ball dancing to “Staying Alive.” It would even have been acceptable for a day in the office. However, we were at the dock, about to board small boats for a 12-hour data collection effort in Los Angeles Harbor. His clothes were impractical and even dangerous for the work we were doing.

Yes, this is a “dress for success” discussion. You’ve heard it before. Here’s my version.

Some years ago a group of sociology students ran experiments in which they placed a wallet containing money but no identification in a sidewalk phone booth. They watched until a passerby discovered the wallet, then they sent an accomplice to tell the discoverer that the wallet was theirs. The accomplices got the wallets back 70% more often when they were well-dressed than when they dressed down. Similar experiments have consistently shown that the better dressed stranger is always rated as more intelligent and more honest. Yes, it’s superficial to judge on appearance but the effect is real and if we ignore it, we hurt our career prospects.

You can find lots of books and magazines providing advice on the specifics of dressing for work. I won’t do that. Instead, here are some examples that might help the new engineer.

·       Most work dress decisions affect your career prospects. Some can kill you. Jordan dressed inappropriately for the situation and his clothing could have caused serious injury, even death. Loose clothing can catch in equipment, leather soled shoes slip on wet surfaces, and high heels make balancing difficult. Handling heavy objects? Wear steel-toed work boots with gripping soles.

·       One of my young engineers wore his college ROTC boots, worn at the heels, scuffed and cut, to meetings with clients. Those boots, in combination with a coat and tie business wear, struck a discordant note. Clients noticed. I noticed.

·       At Mississippi State University we instructed engineering seniors in the capstone design course to dress “business formal” when presenting their projects to the review panel. In the 12 years I participated, every female student showed up in perfect dress – business suits with trousers or skirts and sensible shoes. Most of the males wore a sports jacket and tie ensemble. A few of the male students came wearing tees and jeans, work boots, no coat, no tie. Those guys dressed to please themselves, not the reviewers. Their work was usually technically excellent but those few got bad grades for presentation and following instructions. They would do better in their careers if they learned the lesson that day rather than later.

·       My colleague Robert wore a jacket and tie when briefing clients but his shirt and tie choices were a riot of patterns and colors. His ties sometimes bore amusing slogans. He said he was demonstrating his personality. I thought he looked like a circus clown. Given that our bosses and clients were a conservative lot, wearing blues and grays, Robert’s loud ties didn’t inspire confidence. Maybe that’s why he didn’t get promoted as rapidly as his peers.

Lessons: Dress for the situation. Dress to impress your bosses and your clients. Pay attention to details like shoes and ironing. If people thing you’re smarter or more reliable as a result, let them.

Kiss Up and Kick Down

“Jack is a kiss-up and kick-down kind of guy.” The first time I heard this phrase it puzzled me. The meaning wasn’t completely clear. Plus, Jack seemed like a pleasant guy. It wasn’t until I saw him in action that I began to understand him and the phrase.

Jack was nice to anyone in the organization that outranked him or might eventually do so. He laughed at the bosses’ jokes and complimented them on their wise decisions. He did it so smoothly that it didn’t seem like overt kissing-up. Jack was cordial to me and other engineers, even those of us who weren’t in his chain of command. I eventually learned that his behavior, which could have been simply a reflection of an easy-going personality, was calculated, since any one of us might get promoted into a position above him.

It was Jack’s treatment of those he outranked that helped me fully understand what a nasty character he really was. He didn’t see me the day he stalked into the copier room and ordered a technician to stop her work and copy something important for him. I heard her say, “Sure. Just as soon as I’m finished.”

Jack said, “I’m pulling rank on you. Make me a copy or I’ll make sure your supervisor gives you a bad performance rating.”

I was about to intervene when I heard Jeannie, the technician, say, “You’ll have to pull something bigger than rank to get me to stop what I’m doing.” I was proud of her and pleased that she didn’t need my help in squashing Jack. He slunk away.

The incident solidified my low opinion of Jack. It also explained why the secretaries, clerks, and technicians disliked him. He epitomized Kiss-up/Kick-down behavior. I remembered it a couple of years later when I became his boss. I never again trusted his affirmations and always distrusted his motives.

Don’t Get on Their Bad Side

“If you get on the wrong side of these fellows, they take it out on you in other ways,” explains Lieutenant Hooper of the British army to Captain Ryder as to why he treats enlisted men very gently. The scene occurs early in Evelyn Waugh’s wonderful novel, Brideshead Revisited. Moments later Captain Ryder is admonished by his Sargent-Major, “If you get on the wrong side of senior officers, they take it out on you in other ways.”

I had just recently read those fictional exchanges when a fellow engineer at my new workplace said, “Be careful how you talk to the draftsmen. Get on their bad side and they’ll take it out on you in other ways.” I burst out laughing, offending my coworker, and no amount of explaining could set it right. He shunned me for as long as I worked at Corollo Engineers in Phoenix, proving that engineers will get back at you if you laugh at them.

The irony didn’t end there. I heard similar sentiments many times in my Corps of Engineers career and while teaching at Mississippi State University. You had to be careful to stay on the good side of the engineers, technicians, secretaries, officers, enlisted men, professors and administrators. Everybody was afraid of each other. Most of those I worked with were great people and it was easy to stay on their good side. A few were so nasty that I wondered what happened to people who got on their bad side. Maybe the nasty ones broke into their enemies’ houses and crumbled crackers between the bed sheets.

I experienced the phenomenon. For example, I once recruited an engineer from Portugal with an internationally recognized expertise in river sedimentation. When I told my boss about it, he said the Corps of Engineers could hire only U.S. citizens. When I asked Jim, our Human Resources office point-of-contact, he told me the same thing, so I asked to see the Army regulation that prohibited hiring a non-citizen. But when I read the regulation, it didn’t prohibit hiring foreign nationals at all; instead it provided a procedure for hiring them. My boss and Jim in HR were either misinformed or blowing smoke.

I followed the prescribed procedures and hired the Portuguese engineer, encountering “You can’t do that,” at every step. So, at every step I brandished the Army regulation and Department of Labor rules to overcome resistance. I definitely got on the bad side of Jim, the HR guy, and he did take it out on me in other ways, but it was worth it. An outstanding engineer joined my team and Jim stopped making up imaginary regulatory blockades, at least with me.

In a previous blog, “Plays Well with Others,” I suggested that being pleasant at work paid dividends. It does. But we shouldn’t avoid necessary disagreement out of fear of retribution. As long as we argue calmly and avoid incendiary language and insults, most people will accept disagreement, even serious disagreement, without holding a grudge. If they do take it out on us in other ways, as Jim did, then we can deal with that as just another disagreement to be resolved. Avoiding all conflict doesn’t eliminate disagreement, it just puts us at a permanent disadvantage.

The Pinocchio

The Pinocchio Boss obscures the truth with smoke, evades it with half-truths, or lies outright. Working for one ought to qualify as torture under the Geneva Convention.

The first problem with Pinocchio Bosses is that you can’t do a good job with the incorrect information they provide. That’s fundamental. The second is more insidious – serious liars usually suspect others of lying in return. They seem to think, “I’d lie in this situation, so he must be lying.” The resulting breakdown in mutual trust makes the atmosphere toxic.

Sometimes Pinocchio’s motives aren’t so bad. All of us may shade the truth occasionally to avoid hurting someone but People Pleasers carry it to the extreme. They don’t want to give us bad news, so they deceive us. In the face of such excessive caring, I’m tempted to sing the Dixie Chick lyrics – “Let 'er rip, let it fly / I ain't about to bawl, and I ain't gonna die.” We can usually pry the supposedly hurtful truth out of People Pleasers by asking enough questions, pinning them down. But it’s work and so unnecessary.

Another Pinocchio category is the Insecures, who want to cover up their own ignorance or ineptitude with a lie. Since it’s their own feelings that are in danger, they are much harder to crack than People Pleasers. Getting to the truth requires independent investigation. One solution: if they cite regulation or policy, ask for the document that spells it out, explaining, “So I won’t be so foolish next time.” Other lies can be uncovered by finding counter-examples. e.g., “Smith was promoted without spending a year in a lower grade.” It’s also hard work but amazingly successful and won’t win you any friends.

I have met only three bosses who were shameless, Total Liars. Fortunately for me, they weren’t my bosses and I could usually observe from a safe distance. They lied because they had to win at any cost or just because they could. I once sat in a meeting in which Paul calmly denied saying something that everyone present had heard him say. After a failed attempt to shame him into admitting a mistake, we all just gazed at each other in wonder. He wasn’t even embarrassed by us all knowing he was a liar. Paul didn’t trust anyone else, either, constantly accusing others of fabrication. Paul destroyed morale in his department, drove away clients, and made work life miserable for anyone in the vicinity.

There is only one solution for Total Liars – get away. Get away quickly.

What other archetypes have you encountered? Share some stories.

The Undecider

Some people hate to make decisions. When asked to decide something, they may:

1.     Ask for more information, delaying the need to decide.

2.     Insist that the decision be endorsed by others, sharing the blame.

3.     Say that they’ll take it up with higher management, delegating upward.

4.     Say they’ll think about it, meaning it will be ignored as long as possible.

One boss I knew specialized in excuse number 1. No matter how much information we provided, Kenny could always think of something else to ask for. Most of my colleagues just decided and acted, operating on the well-known “Don’t Tell” principle that it’s easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission. That made Kenny happy, since if something went wrong he simply claimed ignorance and the blame slid over him and on to us. It worked but let him off the hook.

My friend Mary refused to play that game. Instead, she would charge into Kenny’s office and say, “Unless you order me not to, I’m going to …” followed by the action she wanted to take. Kenny would grow pink with frustration. Telling her to not do something was a decision, and it was to be avoided. It might also make her mad and Kenny was afraid of Mary. Even nodding and allowing her to go ahead was a decision he didn’t want to make, but it was the path of least resistance, so he nearly always took it. But he couldn’t claim ignorance.

It was a great method, but Mary gave it up and returned to the Don’t Tell approach. She said, “Kenny suffers too much. I don’t mind taking the heat for my decisions and I don’t want him to have a heart attack.”

The Micro-Manager

You will encounter a few great bosses, a few terrible bosses, and many mediocre bosses in your career. Virtually anyone can succeed with a great boss. Actively manage your work-life and you can succeed with (or despite) the not-so-great ones.

Active management of your own work-life requires first that you strive to understand your boss’ needs and style. After the initial getting-to-know each other stage, ask her or him how they like to operate. Does she prefer to get frequent updates or be notified only when work is complete or problems arise? Which decisions are delegated and which are reserved? Does she encourage or discourage asking for advice from those inside her group? Outside her group? And so on. Most managers are self-aware enough that they can give you valuable guidance.

Listen to co-workers’ opinions on what the boss is like but follow Marvin Gaye’s advice to believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. Your co-workers may be mistaken or misleading when they tell you what the boss likes and hates, so take their word as a data point, not as truth.

Once you figure out the boss’s style and preferences, you have two choices – adapt your style to match or find another job. One caveat: if you often find it necessary to move on, the problem may be with you, not the bosses.

The micro-manager is a common style. He wants to tell you, in detail, what to do and how to do it. Then he looks over your shoulder and double checks everything you do. That’s appropriate when we’re inexperienced or he doesn’t know us very well, but most engineers chafe if the boss keeps doing it. The true micro-manager can’t help it. He does it because he likes to do it or because he’s insecure, not because it’s necessary.

I had an otherwise great supervisor who insisted on checking every single detail of my work. If I produced a graph, he wanted to see the tabular data so he could check every point and add up every column of numbers. It took him weeks to review the simplest client report, so as a program manager I had to force subordinate engineers to complete their reports in much less than the scheduled time or risk missing a client deadline. My co-workers adapted by resigning themselves to his microscopic reviews, with one of them saying, “I don’t need to edit my own reports, the boss does that for me.” For a while I adopted that same attitude but it was exasperating.

Finally, I told my micro-managing boss that his mania for editing reports was bothering me and asked how I could get him to only spot check. His reply was clear, “When I stop finding errors in your reports, I’ll stop checking them.” We were in a reinforcing cycle: I made only cursory reviews of reports done by my team because I knew he would carefully scrutinize them. He carefully reviewed because I wasn’t doing a thorough job of it.

So I scrubbed my next few reports squeaky clean. The boss did his usual detailed review and they came back with only word-choice changes. When I showed him how he was making only minor edits, he looked very pained but said, “You’re right. From now on your stuff goes out with only a brief review. But embarrass me and I’ll go right back to details.”

It actually worked. He was sharp enough to realize his own foibles and change his practice without getting defensive. Many bosses can’t change. Next time we’ll talk about one of those.