Energy vs. Intensity

How can we communicate more effectively?  This question is ultimately at the heart of almost everything I do professionally, but I gave it particularly close thought today after an interaction with someone I'm coaching.  He's seeking to be more influential with someone he described as "low-energy," and the mismatch between their energy levels is posing a dilemma for him.

I think it's important to recognize that our interpersonal communication behaviors can be defined not only in terms of their energy but also in terms of their intensity.  These qualities are similar but distinct, and understanding the subtle difference between them can help us be more aware of the choices we're making and allow us to tailor our approach to a given interaction.  Mapping these two dimensions across each other results in four distinct modes that represent clusters of associated behaviors:

(Here's a larger version of the graphic above, and here's a 1-slide PowerPoint file [36 KB].)

Choosing the mode that best fits the moment can allow us to communicate more effectively with a specific person in a given setting.  Of course, this subjective and oversimplified framework only serves to raise a host of complex questions: What behaviors define each mode for you?  Are certain modes easy or difficult for you?  Are you able to identify and use the mode that best fits the moment?  How might you do that more readily?

Returning to my coachee, he's dialing down his energy level in order to connect with this other person more effectively.  But because he's not distinguishing between energy and intensity, he's slipping into Contained mode, and his ability to convey his thoughts and feelings in an influential way suffers.  An alternative approach would be to opt for Focused mode--dial down the energy while maintaining a high level of intensity--and thereby match the other person's low energy while leaving room to be more intentional, deliberate and influential.

Two closing comments: First, note that I see this model as highly personalized--the behaviors that comprise each mode look and feel a little different for all of us.  And second, the larger concept of a distinction between energy and intensity feels more important to me than the four-mode model itself; the latter is useful to the extent that it illustrates the former, but there may well be better ways of accomplishing that goal.

Comments

[James]

Good to have you back. Don't leave it (nearly) 4 months again!

[Ed Batista]

Thanks, James--I'm glad to be back, and I appreciate the welcome! I needed some time off to reflect, although I let that process drag on a bit too long. I've emerged feeling re-committed to writing about what's meaningful to me--often to reinforce learning from various readings, but also to share more from my own experiences. Hope to see you around.

Ed

[Drew Bernard]

Interesting. I can't help but wonder which mode works best in different setting/situations.

Food for thought.

drew

[Ed Batista]

Thanks for the comment, Drew. I think the best fit between mode and setting is both highly individualized AND situational. I can see the answers being different not only for you and for me, but also differing for me at different times.

But I believe the first key is simply being aware of our tendencies to use (or avoid) a given mode, and the ease (or difficulty) we experience when seeking to employ a given mode. Awareness on that level--which I see as primarily emotional--probably has to precede any cognitive judgments about best fit.

Ed