Perceptual Styles – Getentrepreneurial.com: Resources for Small Business Entrepreneurs in 2024

Article Contributed by Gary M. Jordan

As coaches, we spend a lot of time helping people understand the distinctions between the six different Perceptual Styles. Why? Because these distinctions are essential to understanding conflicts that arise in the workplace (and everywhere else, too).

A classic example is a corporate client we had that was in serious danger of bankruptcy. They hired a “turn-around” specialist who had the Goals Perceptual Style. His initial plan involved some severe “reductions in force” and the shutting down of all projects and lines of business that were not part of the organization’s core. The time frame he outlined was aggressive.

In explaining the Goals Perceptual Style, I often use a military analogy: If you tell a person with the Goals Style that the objective is to “take that hill”, they will immediately march forward, straight to the top of the hill, dispatching any resistance they meet along the way, and perhaps even sustain heavy losses to their own platoon in the process.

While the example is simplistic, the image conveys the Goals approach—direct, immediate, tenacious, determined, and fully focused on the objective. These qualities make such people a tremendous asset in a crisis, as they have the ability to see the most important objective and drive towards it, ignoring everything else.

This particular organization, however, had been around for over a hundred years and had a long history and tradition. Part of that tradition was placing a high value on people—an attitude of “taking care of our own”. The specialist failed to take these organizational values into account at the beginning of the process when he brought all the managers together and laid out his restructuring plan.

Three of the key managers involved had the Flow Perceptual Style. Those with this style are the keepers of history and tradition, and they understand the human dynamics involved in organizations better than any other Style. People with the Flow perspective see the impact on the human system that changes will create, and they know how to subtly use and influence the human community within an organization to mitigate, diminish or even block such changes.

This group of Flow managers began “doing their thing,” and before the specialist knew what was happening, he found himself in front of the company’s CEO defending and then finally backing down on the abrupt nature of his plans. He was shocked by this turn of events because he knew that unless the organization changed quickly, they would not survive. What he missed was that because of the power of the organization’s history and traditions, it could not survive if it tried to change so quickly.

This is a common Goals versus Flow conflict, and although the example is from a corporate client, this type of conflict can occur just about anywhere: in coaching relationships, in small business environments and even at home—anywhere these two styles interact.

People with the Goals Style step up to engage a problem and boldly and directly lay out a solution that will achieve the desired end, but ignore the impact and ripple effects it will have on people, the environment, and clients. People with the Flow Style see these impacts only too well and begin to refine, modify, discreetly block, or completely ignore those directives in order to soften the “damage”. The more Goals pushes, the more Flow backs away, and the more Flow backs away, the more Goals pushes.

As in all conflicts, of course, there is truth on both sides, and a solution lies in accepting that each view is limited.

In our example, the specialist had to accept that his ability to understand the human impact of his plan on the organization was limited, and that his plan would have a much greater chance of success if he listened to the managers’ advice on how to deal with its impact. The managers had to acknowledge the reality of the dire situation they were in—and accept that if they blocked all of the changes proposed, the organization would disappear.

Conflicts can be resolved by acknowledging the value that other Perceptual Styles bring to the table, and by accepting that one’s own understanding, without the input of others’, is both limited and incomplete.

About the Author:

Gary M. Jordan, Ph.D.: With a PhD and MA in clinical psychology, Gary Jordan is a partner at Vega Behavioral Consulting, Ltd, where he has been advising and mentoring people in all areas of life for the past 20 years. Gary is the visionary behind the Perceptual Style Theory, a revolutionary psychological assessment system that teaches people how to unleash their deepest potentials for success. For free information on how to succeed as an entrepreneur or coach, create a thriving business and build your bottom line doing more of what you love, visit www.ACIforCoaches.com and www.ACIforEntrepreneurs.com.

Article Contributed by Gary M. Jordan

In Malcolm Gladwell’s latest book, Outliers, the author writes:

“Western communication has what linguists call a “transmitter orientation” – that is, it is considered the responsibility of the speaker to communicate ideas clearly and unambiguously. . . But Korea, like many Asian countries, is receiver oriented. It is up to the listener to make sense of what is being said.” p. 216

As far as the 6 innate Perceptual Styles go, there’s a block I’ve seen over and over again regarding communication between the Activity and Flow Styles, and I believe it can be explained by this concept.

Activity is clearly transmitter oriented, as people with this Style use plenty of contextual information to ensure that the receiver understands what’s being communicated. People with the Flow Style, on the other hand, use a subtle and nuanced combination of words that requires the listener to work to fully understand what is being conveyed.

Unfortunately, this difference in orientation is a set-up for conflict no matter which direction the communication is moving in.

When Activity is talking to Flow, Flow quickly interprets the meaning of the message and can become bored and/or offended by what they perceive as Activity’s excessive verbiage.

When Flow is talking to Activity, Activity misses much of the meaning that Flow intends because Flow’s nuanced choice of words is lost on Activity (who is waiting for context). Activity often becomes irritated by what they perceive as partial communication by Flow.

In reflecting on the concept of communication orientation in relation to Perceptual Styles, I realized that there is a clear delineation among all six of the Perceptual Styles.

Three of the six—Activity, Vision, and Goals—are transmitter oriented, while the other three—Methods, Adjustments, and Flow—are receiver oriented. Within each group of three, each Perceptual Style uses the orientation a little differently and with different intent, but the orientation is the same.

Here’s how it breaks down by the Perceptual Style, based on the communication characteristics unique to that Style.

The Transmitter Orientations:

• Activity makes sure to provide ample context when speaking and gives multiple examples through anecdotes that illustrate their point. This is to make sure that there is a solid connection and that ‘you are with me.’

• Vision uses persuasive and inspiring language to paint a picture of what they want you to understand. This is to make sure that you are enthusiastic, enrolled and that ‘you buy into my perspective’.

• Goals issues directives and commands and requires feedback in order to ensure that the listener clearly understands. This is to make sure that there is no ambiguity and that ‘you understand what I want you to do.’

The Receiver Orientations:

•   Methods delivers information in a matter-of-fact manner that requires the listener to put the data together themselves. This is because the correct conclusion is obvious to this Style and ‘you should draw the same conclusion I do’.

•   Adjustments provides detailed, thorough, and precise information that displays the elegance of the topic but requires the listener to provide a context for its relevance. This is because ‘you should be intrigued by the sophistication and complexity of what I am sharing.’

•   Flow speaks in generalities, employing subtly and nuance that allows the listener maximum leeway to respond in order to keep the conversation going, but this also requires the listener to declare preferences, needs, and wants. This is because ‘we’ve connected and you should care enough to understand my unstated intent.’

All of which underscores the fact that, in order to be effective communicators, we need to understand our own Perceptual Style (and how to make adjustments for each of the five other Styles).

About the Author: