Excerpted from the Communication Skills Tutorial for Managers

Tutorial participants may contact us here for permission to copy these definitions (permission is always granted with the proviso to acknowledge the source).


Click a word to see its definition.

Use the Merriam-Webster Dictionary or Thesaurus for further definitions (see below)


Any interaction that detracts from the aliveness, well-being, or serenity of another. To include, silence, frowning, pouting, stink-eye, thwarting, insulting, putting down, invalidating, condescension, raised voice, yelling, screaming, jabbing, pushing, shoving, jerking, grabbing, yanking, pulling another's arm in upset, spanking, slapping, bringing to one's senses with a loving firm slap, hitting, punching and kicking.


Equally important: It is abusive to use your leadership-communication skills to create space for abuse— abusively setting it up for another to abuse you.


For example:

It is abusive of you to choose to hang around someone addicted to doing the above; it's called entrapment. It is you setting it up to be abused so that you can be right, and get community agreement, that they are sicker than you.

It is both unethical and abusive to use someone who is sick (stuck with childhood behaviors of verbal or physical abuse) for your own survival or personal gratification; it is tantamount to child abuse. Just as it would it be unethical to go to a mental hospital looking for a date so too is it unethical to socialize with someone addicted to abuse. Such a person is still stuck in childhood, not unlike a child stuck in temper-tantrums.

here means someone who has not acknowledged (verbally communicated) to you, "I am clear that I am addicted to abuse. You have my word that I will attend weekly therapy or counseling sessions until you are satisfied that I have healed myself. If I break my word and stop going to therapy I insist that you leave me." This needs to be in writing with a witnessed signature.

All abuse reveals one's inability to produce favorable results lovingly through his/her leadership-communication skills.

Most abuse is done unconsciously. Whether conscious or not, abuse is always co-created.

It is abusive of you to put up with (to support with your company) another's pathetic, immature, mediocre, health-debilitating or suicidal behaviors; to do so guarantees equally damaging abuse to you.

It is possible to love another emotionally/conceptually and still be addicted to abusive communications. That is to say, you can have the belief that you want another to be happy and healthy and also have an unconscious intention to sabotage them. The proof of your intentions are the results.

For example:

The seemingly healthy partner of an overweight or smoking/drug/alcohol addicted person is unconsciously addicted to abuse and is equally unhealthy. Such a person is called an enabler and is addicted to arguing. He/she will adamantly, self-righteously and angrily deny this definition of abuse. Like an alcoholic in the first stage of recovery they are in denial. They resist seeing themselves as addicted to arguing  and to being the enabler, the source of the abuse. Health inspires health. Such an individual (an enabler) has refined their "nice" act to hide their intentions, so that they don't have to work on themselves.


| top |


1. a. To admit the existence, reality, or truth of. b. To recognize as being valid or having force or power. 2. a. To express recognition of: acknowledge a friend's smile. b. To express thanks or gratitude for. 3. To report the receipt of. 4. Law To accept or certify as legally binding: acknowledge a deed.

Synonyms: acknowledge, admit, own, avow, confess, concede. These verbs mean to make a disclosure, usually with reluctance or under pressure. To acknowledge is to accept responsibility for something one makes known: He acknowledged that the purchase had been a mistake. Admit usually implies marked reluctance in acknowledging one's acts or accepting a different point of view: "There are some faults which men readily admit, but others not so readily" (Epictetus). Own stresses personal acceptance of and responsibility for one's thoughts or deeds: She owned that she had fears for the child's safety. Avow, a strong term, means to assert openly and boldly: "Many a man thinks, what he is ashamed to avow" (Samuel Johnson). Confess usually emphasizes disclosure of something damaging or inconvenient to oneself: I have to confess that I lied to you. To concede is to admit something, such as the validity of an argument, often against one's will: The lawyer refused to concede that the two cases were at all similar.

| top |


1. A burdened state of mind, as that arising from heavy responsibilities; worry. 2. Mental suffering; grief. 3. An object or source of worry, attention, or solicitude: the many cares of a working parent. 4. Caution in avoiding harm or danger: handled the crystal bowl with care. 5. a. Close attention; painstaking application: painting the window frames and sashes with care. b. Upkeep; maintenance: a product for the care of fine floors; hair care products. 6. Watchful oversight; charge or supervision: left the child in the care of a neighbor. 7. Attentive assistance or treatment to those in need: a hospital that provides emergency care.

| top |


A clearing is a communication process that empties the mind of thoughts.  A clearing can be done in writing or through verbal communications. A clearing acknowledges what's so. i.e. I did this and I didn't do this. When a clearing is done with the intention to empty ones mind it creates space for new thoughts. For example: 1. After doing a clearing an author with "writer's block" suddently has new thoughts. 2. A spouse embroiled in arguments begins to have choices. 3. A veteran who keeps thinking the same thoughts starts generating different thoughts, (certain previously hidden truths appear).  When the truth is told the problem disappears; what causes a problem to persist is that there's a lie in the way one has been describing what "happened."

Writing down ones thoughts at the end of each day is referred to as journaling. Sharing ones thoughts verbally with one or more is referred to as clearing, or a clearing, or a clearing process. i.e. "Let's clear." "Let's do a clearing." Or, "Let's do The Clearing Process."

One can do a clearing process by themselves or with another.  Clearing with a communication skills coach is valuable because the coach guides one in accessing thoughts that the mind usually hides from itself. There is also a valuable Clearing Process for Couples, a Clearing Process for Professionals and a special Clearing Process for a Parent and Young Person/Teen.

Catholics use the term confession, communication consultants use the term clearing; the major difference being that with a clearing there are no consequences assigned. With a confession a penance is given. A clearing is not about sin, right, wrong, good or bad. A communication coach is trained to not add anything. No facial gestures no judgments. Also, when clearing with a coach the coach sits opposite you and asks a series of questions.

The intent in a clearing is for you to communicate that you produced a result and that you are willing to be complete about it. You may or may not have to take some action, such as pay the store owner for the comic books you stole when you were ten years old or, with a serious perpetration, do community service for life or whatever allows you to experience completion. The point here is that being whole and complete begins with the willingness to clean up the past. It works to acknowledge it, not hide it or pretend that it didn't happen. It also does not work to explain or justify it, such actions, including feeling bad about something, guarantees it will happen again. Most Catholics will readily acknowledge that after confession they go out and lie or badmouth again. The confessional process guarantees the undesirable behavior will be repeated. A Clearing Process has the effect of getting to the source of one's lying or badmouthing and completing the undesirable behavior.


For example:

When I first began cleaning up the past I remembered that I had stolen a tool box from a farmer when I was 17. The value of the tool box, in the '50's, was an expensive $25. The farm is now a shopping center, the farmer most likely dead. I decided to donate $100 to one of the orphanages I lived at. For other perpetrations I have donated community service. For me that completes it. In this case no one else assigns what it will take for me be complete.

| top |


All communications have a beginning, middle and end. Start-Do-Complete or Create-Have-Destroy.

The Beginning: Assigning a task with the intention that it be done is you creating a communication.

You envision in your mind the task and it's outcome. You formulate the intention and deliver (communicate) your creation. You've  started a communication. Even starts have beginnings, middles and ends. When you are assigning (communicating) a task it also has a beginning, middle and end.

The Middle: The employee recreates your creation. He/she then (in their mimd) creates it for themselves and then gets involved in the doingness. They get involved in having/doing the task. You are having them do the task. At this point you either believe or intend that they will do it as you envision.

The End: You check to see if the task has been done and acknowledge the results. "Did you do as I asked? Yes? Thank you. No? Thank you." Here is where you get to acknowledge your intention, your communication effectiveness. If the employee completed the task as you envisioned it they not only recreated your intention, but they created it for themselves. Your job is to create employees recreating your creations through to completion.


If the employee completed the task and improved upon your vision, you have caused/inspired the employee to create. The surest way to stop the creative process is to not acknowledge the employee for what he/she needs to be acknowledged.


If the employee did not do the task as envisioned you must be willing to look and see that at some level, however unconscious you may have been at the time, you (now that you're conscious) knew this was a possibility. You either followed through on your intuition or you dropped it, for whatever reason(s).

It's possible that you have resigned yourself to completing 8 of 10 tasks. For sure it's better than what some managers do. What we're looking at here is your barriers, your reasons for not getting the job done, unless of course you acknowledge that your job is to do your best. This is not bad. It would account for why some employees intuitively know you don't intend for them to do complete work all the time. As long as you are clear and you have communicated up front, to everyone, that this is your policy, it is in integrity.

Some people are great at creating, others have barriers to creating.

Some people are great at doing and others have barriers to doing things.

And still others are great at completing things while others are stuck in procrastination, a barrier to completion.

A manager is accomplished with all three.

An individual in the process of becoming a manager has reasons and barriers and those around them (employees) act appropriate to that intention.

Employees always mirror the manager's communication model. Manager's who have excuses and reasons for the results they produce will train their employees to do the same. Ouch! Did I mention this could get uncomfortable?


Note: The value comes, not so much from the content of what you are reading, but that you are willing to engage yourself here in such conversations and share your thoughts on the Message Board.

| top |


1. To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. 2. To hold in restraint; check: struggled to control my temper; regulations intended to control prices. 3. a. To verify or regulate (a scientific experiment) by conducting a parallel experiment or by comparing with another standard. b. To verify (an account, for example) by using a duplicate register for comparison.

n. 1. Authority or ability to manage or direct: lost control of the skidding car; the leaders in control of the country. 2. a. One that controls; a controlling agent, device, or organization. b. Often controls. An instrument or set of instruments used to operate, regulate, or guide a machine or vehicle. 3. A restraining device, measure, or limit; a curb: a control on prices; price controls. 4. a. A standard of comparison for checking or verifying the results of an experiment. b. An individual or group used as a standard of comparison in a control experiment. 5. An intelligence agent who supervises or instructs another agent. 6. A spirit presumed to speak or act through a medium.


This a very important word for managers. You must master control. To master control it's important to know how you control others.


For instance: When someone asks you a question, in that moment, just before you answer, you are keeping them in abeyance, waiting. You are controlling them. If you don't answer it usually causes an upset, not necessarily the bad upsetting kind of upset, and it might be, but merely that it thwarts them. They now have to come up with a work-around. They have to come up with an alternative. You are controlling them. You are keeping them incomplete.


Let's go back, even before they asked the question. It could be said, depending upon your willingness to be responsible, to be cause, that your presence set it up for them to ask you the question. Had you not been in their life, communicating all of your positions and points of view as you do, they would not have had to ask that question. From this point of view you cannot but control others. You set it up for others to ask you questions.


When you ask an employee what their pouting, sadness, or upset is about, they might feign ignorance. If you reward this behavior it becomes a control mechanism. They learn that they can postpone the inevitable and control you by not answering your specific questions. They can keep you incomplete.


For example:

It could be said that all citizens are intent on keeping their mentors (former teachers) incomplete. Withholding a teacher's desired pay, building and supply funds, is a communication. It's a covert non verbalized resentment. It goes something like this "If you had not allowed me to control you, if you had not bought into my 'I don't know' lazy act, had you been willing to control me and support me in doing excellent work I'd be making more money and doing well financially. Because you weren't willing to control me then, you must now struggle along with me. I will keep you incomplete, unacknowledged. I'll let you know when you're doing the job you're supposed to be doing."

| top |


Effectively here means to produce the desired result, your stated intentions.


What this will look like is:


When you communicate a job assignment your associates will get that you intend for it to be done, and to your satisfaction. All other managers in your organization will eventually be able to produce the exact same results. You will set the standard and demonstrate that it can be done.

You will be able to consistently announce meetings and the majority of employees will come and on time.

You will experience others supporting you effectively from love and respect.

Your problems will mainly be those having to do with excellence and mastery as opposed as to problems of discipline and other problems you say you don't want.

You will be the space for all other staff members to communicate lovingly and supportively.

You will communicate in such a way as to inspire health and aliveness.

You will be the space in which agreements are kept.


These are some examples of the potential of communication mastery. Once you have the intention all that's left is the process.


| top |


A goal is an observable, measurable result to be produced within a specified period of time.


For example:

To lose ten pounds by 10/8/11.

To do 50 pushups per day 6 days per week.

To create twenty registrations per week.

| top |


The word having is used to create a context of ownership. You are having an upset as opposed to, "You are upset." You did a stupid thing as opposed to "You are stupid." You are having a relationship as opposed to "Trying to hold on to it or to make it work."

"I noticed that you are having an upset" acknowledges the upset as being a process. The person is somewhere in the middle of the upset process, en route to resolving it. It could be at the very beginning or near the very end of the upset process.

To make the distinction between having and being upset is to allow someone to see that the upset is outside of themselves. Sometimes it's possible to see a person who has become their upset. Upset has become the condition in which they operate.

The same holds true for having a relationship. Most people are stuck in holding on to, or trying to have, as opposed to having one. To experience having a relationship one must be totally willing to not have it at all times.


| top |


It's not accurate to say that what we are about is improving your ability to communicate. You already know how to communicate. It cannot be improved upon. As a manager you have trained those who do good work to do good work and you have trained those who perform poorly to perform poorly. And that cannot not be improved upon. You do it perfectly. What we are about is conversations that make a difference. If you are willing to have some incredibly difficult conversations, I guarantee you that you will find your self producing different, more desirable, results with your associates, and everyone else for that matter.

It's being clear about one's intentions that are most valuable.

| top |


Whole and complete. Nothing missing, nothing added. Also an experience, as in, an experience of integrity. An experience is outside the mind. The mind may find itself explaining or justifying a broken agreement or why an employee is performing poorly. The very preoccupation of the mind with the subject matter is proof that something about the experience is incomplete. The person is not whole and complete, something (the justification) is added. Truth needs no justification.



Something you've done that goes against your own code of ethics. It puts your integrity out. You feel badly about it. It conflicts with your personal standards.


For example:

For me, eating things that contain refined sugar is out-integrity. Another is, I used to be able to lie to a police officer and swear I wasn't speeding as much as they said I was. Now it wouldn't work for me to do that.



When I was young I had many unacknowledged lies, unacknowledged to myself and to others. I did not know back then what the source of my unhappiness was. I had no idea that there was a connection between lying to a police officer and my experience of integrity. In fact, I had so many small lies going that I had no experience of integrity, I was oblivious to such an experience. Later, as I started to clean up my messes, my perpetrations, I began to experience the effects of even a single (for example: "I'll be with you in a minute.") lie.

An out-integrity can be an incomplete, something that I've been procrastinating. It can also be a thought withheld, such as a criticism, judgment or acknowledgment, a badmouthing of another, not having the integrity to communicate it to the person's face.

Most often, an incomplete is something for which you have not acknowledged responsibility, something that you are blaming someone else.

In our Communication Workshop Facilitator Training Program we have an Acknowledgment Process. The average Facilitator Candidate takes about 60 hours to complete the process. It simply consists of another asking the following and other similar questions, "For what incomplete would you like to be acknowledged?" Each of us have hundreds and hundreds of incompletes; they serve as barriers to being.

| top |


Intention as used throughout the tutorial equals result. The way to discover your intentions are to look at the results. Intent is measured by result. Synonymous with goal. The goal envisioned clearly is the result achieved.

If an employee does not do the job as you envisioned, and you are willing to communicate from responsibility, from cause, then it was not your intention for him/her to do it. 

Looking at it from this perspective gives you an opportunity to see exactly what your intention was. Very often it is that you want to be right that they didn't listen, or that it wasn't their intention or some other blaming thought. Anything other than you didn't cause communication to take place.

When the result differs from what I say I intended it reveals that I was not clear about my intent. Communicating an intention requires that I create the other to recreate, and then create, my intention to be their intention.

Whenever I dump a want upon another, without getting clear whether or not it has also become their intention, I get something other than what I said I intended. It's usually an opportunity to discover something about myself.

The barrier to getting this definition is one's arrogance and self righteousness. The mind, the ego, does not like to think that it attempts, tries, efforts and fails solely to be right that others are wrong.

| top |


The person who has accepted responsibility for the results.

The person is usually designated by the title "Manager," however, in a true organization everyone holds themselves as managers, because from their experience they are managing the designated manager.

| top |

Communication Models:

There are many different communication models.

A model is a way of looking at something. It represents the actual thing. It's a way of describing, studying and talking about something.


For example:

Here are four different communication models:

Military Communication Model
Military (Boot Camp) Drill Instructor's Model
Military Instruction Communication Model
Intentional Communication Model

The Military Communication Model:

Contrary to Hollywood's portrayal, there is no single military communication model. While there is an overall way of relating that is recognized and understood throughout the US armed services, it is also true that within each branch of service (Army, Navy etc.), and within certain units (Infantry, Medical, Finance, etc.) in a particular branch, there are well defined and distinct models. Mostly these differences have to do with personalities or leadership/styles. Working in an Army Recruiting Station in Minneapolis is almost like working for a real estate company, with the exception of the uniforms; it's casual, almost no saluting and most often everyone (officers and enlisted) socialize (birthday parties) with each other. 

What's also true is that at any given moment throughout the armed services the superior always has the option of bringing forth the authoritarian communication model with which most civilians are familiar. This model is sometimes used as a wake-up call when familiarity has resulted in unconsciousness/mediocrity.

Military (Boot Camp) Drill Instructor's Model:

Basic Training (Boot Camp Drill Sergeant) Instructors, with which most civilians are familiar, have their own communication model. 

For the most part it is not experienced again in one's military career.

The distinguishing characteristic of a Drill Sergeant's communication model is that it is abusive; it's characterized by yelling, screaming, insulting, etc. Drill Sergeants honestly believe they can't produce the same results without such abuse; it gets people to perform through fear and intimidation. There is nothing wrong with this. It gets the job done, unfortunately it gets carried home. Spouses sometimes emulate their Drill Sergeant. It's never successful in one's personal/social life or in the business community because it does not allow for the truth to be told (read the General's Story).

Military Instruction Communication Model:

If you have read About Us you know that my military background is about as extensive as it gets. Navy submarines, then UDT/SEALs, then with the Army as the commanding officer of infantry paratroopers in Vietnam. My point is that I have experienced some incredible training programs.

The Military Instructional Communication Model varies very little from branch to branch or unit to unit within any branch of service.

For example:

Most Army instructors sound and relate like most Navy instructors. An Army rifle instructor or parachuting instructor and a Navy electrician instructor follow pretty much the same format and have nearly identical teaching styles.

The Military Instruction Communication Model is very simple. The Instructor tells you what they are going to teach you. It's a well defined, precisely written, objective. They have you read the sentence they just verbalized. They then present the subject matter. They then verbalize, what they presented. They then review/recapitulate for you what they presented. They then test you to see if you got what they presented. Most every class begins with a short ten-item  pop quiz on what's was covered and what will be covered in the mid-term and the final. They teach you how you will be tested and then test you. All Instructors grade pretty much the same. It is virtually impossible to graduate from a military school without having the exact skills they want you to have and knowing what they want you to know.

What's also true is that a partnership develops. When one falls behind, as I did a few times, it became clear that to fail is to hurt the Instructor's chances for promotion (read pay raise). This happens to be the way it is with public schools, it's just not communicated verbally (teacher's average $40,000 per year whereas skilled laborers average $80,000). The skilled labor force has zero commitment to ensure the success and prosperity of its mentors (former teachers).

The reason for bringing up the Military Instruction Communication Model is to prove that it is possible to communicate in a way so as to produce the desired result, no excuses, no reasons, and, without yelling or sounding like a Drill Sergeant.

It is possible to combine what you've learned with what also works in the military. I've done it and so can you.

For the past ten years I have facilitated thousands of meetings with volunteers. I can count on one hand the number of times we started or ended late or when a meeting member didn't show up. I recall no agreement-making-process in which I had to raise my voice to produce that result. It has to do with intention, not volume or words.

It's well known that military educational classes, at least those taught to service personnel below senior officers, such a Majors and Colonels, are taught at a 6th grade reading level. This means that the manuals and handouts are written to ensure comprehension by an average sixth grader. The verbal communications, on the other hand, from my experience, are not far removed from the vocabulary used by most public school teachers. In other words, normal and typical.

What I'm getting at here is that the military cannot afford to have a submariner who doesn't understand the physics of buoyancy, water and air pressures. A tank driver must know not only how to drive a tank but also they must have a working knowledge of vehicle maintenance, computer operations, tactics, gunnery, trajectories and ballistics. Military personnel operate some of the most sophisticated electronics in the world. These submariners and tank commanders are 18 & 19 year-old high school graduates.

| top |

Intentional Communication Model:

The intentional model requires that all concerned be willing to communicate responsibly, from cause. One presumes that they are intending (causing) what another says to them. The model, this way of communicating, precludes arguments because one is always looking to see why one would cause another to say what they are saying. One wonderful characteristic of this model is that the intention is to communicate through to mutual satisfaction.


This model is explained, demonstrated, and used throughout our tutorials.


Given the above, what then is the difference between the military's instruction communication model and the model used throughout our public school systems?


After all, school teachers and military instructors alike attended the same high school speech classes and for that matter most all have met the same college speech/communication curriculum requirements.

The main difference between the military instruction communication model and that used by the majority of public schools is intention and responsibility.


In the military students are communicated with from the point of view that it's the instructor's responsibility to teach.


Military Instructors are graded and promoted based upon their teaching skill measured by the number of failures against successes. A failing student is handled from the point of view that the Instructor has a communication problem, not the student. Seldom is an Instructor not promoted because a students fails. It's just not allowed to get that bad. The Instructor intends for all qualified students to pass. A student who does not pass is clearly not suited for the class and is given an opportunity to retake the class with close outside tutorial supervision.


Also, an Instructor's presentation is continually being critiqued by the Instructor's immediate superior and fellow Instructors. Seldom is there not an observer in the back of the room.


Obviously my point is that it can be done.


The foremost barrier to the experience of communication is reasonableness. One either gets the job done or they have their reasons.


| top |


An organization is one or more individuals aligned with a specific purpose.

"Aligned" here means that each person within an organization is clear about the purpose of the organization.

"Clear" here means that anyone in the organization one can quote verbatim the purpose of the organization.

There are organizations and there are groups of people in the process of becoming an organization.

A group of people calling itself an organization but in which all employees are not aligned with the purpose in truth are in the process of becoming an organization, being managed by someone in the process of becoming a manager.

| top |


Something you have done or not done that you feel badly about. There is always guilt attached. It does not include what I think is right or wrong for you to be doing. It has nothing to do with the law.


For example:

For me to eat things with refined sugar is a perpetration. Sometimes wink. And, you may say, "Hey it's either black or white, that's a copout." No, for me it's ok to have some sugar some times but I clearly know when I'm overdosing and when the amount is not good for me.

On the other hand, sugar might not be a problem for you at all so it's never a perpetration.

Often a perpetration is something, a thought, you have been withholding or hiding from someone you love and respect. It may or not be thought of as being bad by another. The fact that the thought, to share it or not, exists proves that it is an incomplete.

Incompletes persist only in conditions of out-integrity. When one is in-integrity there is an experience of wholeness and of being complete, there is no mind-chatter about sharing or not sharing, justifying or rationalizing.

Non-verbalized withheld perpetrations serve as barriers to the experience of communication and love. Employees have a harder time hearing instructions when they have an unacknowledged perpetration floating around in their mind.


Another example:

A friend of mine once stood for a half hour in front of 30 friends at an Advanced Communication Workshop hemming and hawing about this terrible thing he had been hiding from us. His anguish was evident and such that we thought the worst. So terrible and obvious was his guilt and embarrassment that we thought perhaps he had committed some felony. He was however determined to get it out of his system and come clean with his friends. Finally, with a burst of tears and grief he said, "I eat candy bars." Well, everyone inappropriately broke into laughter. We communicated, "You mean that's what we've been waiting for, that's your perpetration?" Yes. To him and his experience of integrity it was. It did shock us because he had been presenting himself as junk-food-free and not un-self-righteous about it either. He's been considerably more compassionate since then.

| top |


In communication consulting there are two kinds of problems:

1) A problem you are consciously choosing to have.

2) A problem you say you don't want. This is also stated as; an unwanted condition that persists.


What causes an unwanted problem to persist is that there is a lie somewhere. The lie needs to be acknowledged.


The lie usually is in how the problem is being defined. When the truth is told the problem disappears. It's not that the person with the problem is consciously lying, it's usually that they can't see the truth.


For example:

A manager might say, "I have an employee who is doing sloppy work" as opposed to, "I don't know how to get into communication with one of my employee so that she consistently does complete  work."

Once the problem is clearly stated responsibly (from cause) the mind says, "Now why didn't I think of that?" It's almost embarrassing.


Among consultants it's a given that what the client says is the problem is never the problem.


Another example:

A teacher might say, "The legislature won't pay us what we believe we are worth and, they won't even fund us enough for supplies or enough to repair our classrooms" as opposed to, "I don't know how to communicate with my fellow teachers in such as way as to align them so that we can enroll a specific legislator whom we know will work with us in enrolling the other legislators so that they will vote in support of us producing the results I say, and we say, we want, so,,,,, I blame, and support my fellow teachers in blaming others. In other words our funding/salaries mirror my communication skills."


Our communication model, how we communicate, generates the kinds of problems we have and how long we have them. A skilled communicator cycles through creating, having, and completing problems quickly. If you have an employee who's not performing to your standards you have a communication problem; you are not in communication with him/her.


Power is the rate of speed you cycle through creating, having, and completing problems.

| top |


The idea or ideal set before the mind as the end of action or being.

A purpose is a vision or aim and upon attainment is immediately and automatically reset. It's always in effect.

The distinction between purpose and goal is that goals are measurable and observable.

There is an end in site with a goal.


Some examples:

  • If my purpose is to serve then I am either serving or doing something else. I am either on or off purpose.

  • If my purpose is to make people happy and I'm arguing and making someone feel badly then I am off purpose.

  • If my purpose is to be happy and I'm not being happy then I am off purpose.

  • If my purpose in life is to travel east then as long as I continue going east I am on purpose and, there is always more east to go.


The ideal is to create a purpose that supports prosperity, health, and love.

| top |


Skill is used here according to Dr. Paul Heinberg's Morphology of Human Learning, 1972, University of Hawaii, Sp/Com Dept. Dr. Heinberg illustrates on a chart three levels of learning; Cognitive, Behavioral and Affective. Each of these variables are measured in terms of Competence, Performance, and Skill.


For our purpose most speech teachers know/understand (Cognitive) the communication process. They can explain it (Behavioral) and many study the subject in their free time and may even able to turn others on to the subject (Affective). They also may be able create the illusion, or have agreement amongst friends and associates, that they are effective communicators (President Reagan) and get great student evaluations (Behavioral & Performance). However, what's missing at the higher education level are communication standards for someone in the process of becoming a teacher to achieve.


The true measure of whether one has learned, say's Dr. Heinberg, is whether you are skilled. There must be agreement in the community or amongst educators that you are planning and innovating to achieve some self specified environmental change. That you are effecting, through your communication skills, a social structure consistent with your integrity and intentions.

To paraphrase Werner Erhard, the founder of the est Training and The Forum, there must be agreement in the community that you have demonstrated the ability:

1) to work outside of agreement, of what's accepted

2) to implement your creations, your innovations


I suspect that you, the reader, have planned and are in the process of innovating a specific environmental change, however your upcoming challenge has to do with ethics and integrity.


The measure of whether you are a skilled communicator is whether you can be trusted to tell the truth at all times and, if you are the space in which the truth is told at all times. That takes skill and the skill is not being taught to a criteria in our higher education system. In part the reason it's not taught is because those who teach speech/communication sincerely believe they cannot tell the truth at all times to everyone or they would lose their job.


There are those in the process of becoming teachers and there are teachers. A teacher is committed to service and forwards others. Those in the process of becoming teachers practice becoming skilled and have students who fail.


Within Community Communications we hold to the standard that anyone who wishes to facilitate workshops must complete the Co-Facilitator's Training Program. To complete it one must have unanimous agreement from the board of directors and workshop participants that they are in fact skilled. By our standards a skilled communicator can be trusted to tell the truth, has a reputation for keeping agreements, is the space in which the truth is told and has consistently demonstrated an ability to engage in difficult conversations, communicating responsibly, from cause, through to everyone's satisfaction. Only two of our 1099 communication workshop participants have achieved and sustained that skill. It's not a skill one achieves and holds on to for life, it has to be worked on daily. It requires a willingness to operate from impeccable integrity. "Teachers" must have a communication-skills coach on speed dial.

| top |


As used here it refers to more than change, adding to or taking away. It is closer to transubstantiate; same looks different substance.


For example:

To have a transformed communication model means that whereas before when you would assign a task it would not get done to your satisfaction; afterwards, when you communicate your intention for a task to be done it would get done, the first time, without further supervision. And, you would use the identical words both times.

| top |


Any thought that you consciously would hide from someone for a reason.

For example:
I withhold from most store clerks my negative judgments of them for fear (reason) that the next time I shop they will dramatize their upset by giving me bad service. That, and we have no agreement to tell the truth to each other. Our implied, nonverbal, agreement is to be superficially polite with each other.


Withholds are not about good and bad right and wrong.


Most people in their personal relationships operate from the implied, non-verbal, agreement to withhold certain thoughts.


Another Example:

During my first marriage when I saw a woman I thought was pretty I withheld the thought from my wife. My reasoning at the time was that I didn't want her to feel hurt or insecure. In truth it was just a dramatization of my sneakiness, fear and insecurity, also arrogance, as though she wasn't as big as I was, as though she couldn't handle the truth like I can.

| top |

Merriam Webster Dictionary & Thesaurus

Dictionary Thesaurus

Press Continue to return