Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Concrete vs. Abstract Mind

0 helpful
32 replies

by boxfiddler

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I work for a small, not-for-profit that is engaged in helping to heal war trauma in my community. We're funded by a variety of religious and private organizations and foundations, as well as a variety of local, state, federal, and international governmental bodies.

The therapeutic work that we do requires strong abstract minds in order to be successful. We have them in abundance.

The accountability our various funders expect of us requires strong concrete minds in order to provide the level of detailed reporting they seek. There are but two of us.

We have serious internal communication issues on both sides.

I'm curious as to how you folks deal with this kind of communications issue in your organization. And looking for anything we can implement to help ourselves improve our internal communications.

Thanks much.

etu
clarify - internal

32 replies

by santeewelding

Without the concrete, from which the abstract is abstracted.

Nor, is there any concrete without the abstract to tell us so.

We are stuck with both. At the same time. All the time.

The minute one goes one way without the other, watch out.

In your pro forma, Concrete [i]versus[/i] Abstract, one goes one way without the other. That way lies grief.

etunusual

by ansugisalas

Does the concrete care if the abstract tells it or not? If a tree falls in the wood, and noone tells it how woods are made up of trees, will it make a difference to the poor sod it hits? Just wondering...

Abstraction is a useful tool, but without a steady connection with reality it's a nosedive waiting to happen, usually involving a nose-to-concrete reconnection.

by jfuller05

These have helped me to communicate effectively to various types of communicators, what did I learn? To keep it simple (also, to actually know what I'm communicating). Of course, as I am human, I fail sometimes. :)

1. Use simple terms
When in conversation, avoid using specialist language if it is not needed. Use language that the person you are speaking with understands. Don't try to impress; seek to express. Communication that is simple and clear is persuasive. More often than not, we techies like to use our acronyms. As cool as that is, our clients/users don't understand, so I try not to use acronyms with the people I'm helping.

2. Use stories and illustrations
This kind of communication works better for most people and takes the complex and puts it into practical terms.

3. Own what you are talking about
To communicate simply, it helps to understand deeply. If you have trouble communicating your ideas in simple terms, it could be a sign that you are just repeating things in the way that you have heard others say it. Spend time making the subject your own by crafting your own illustrations and ways of communicating the subject -- and keep it as simple as possible.

Some useful resources:

http://www.civicus.org/toolkits/communications-and-media (the Internal Communication Toolkit)

http://www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/Tools/Toolkits/communication/tools.html

by ansugisalas

I am translator and bachelor of General Linguistics, so, while I'm not always able to get my point across, I can evaluate problems to some extent.
So, if you have concrete examples of your problems I can maybe suggest approaches to diminish problems.
What do you mean by abstract minds? Scientists? Psychologists? Something else?
By concrete minds I assume you mean technical, application-focused?

by boxfiddler

It's that, or use absolutist/relativist, which is somewhat 'true', but I think not as apt.

We two concretes deal in data, and application of theory that neither of us is fully qualified to apply. Me, Accounting, my cohort, Social/Psychological theory, in relation the requirements noted above.

Our abstracts, on the other hand, deal with the various clinical issues that beset our clients, which requires extensive theoretical knowledge and training in Psychology.

Getting a straight answer from the abstracts is (seemingly) impossible. On the other hand, our blunt nature is off-putting. And certain 'absolutes' are simply not understood and/or dealt with.

I'd like to see us come to some agreed upon middle-ground in our inter-office and daily work-oriented communications. We flounder, at the moment, wasting valuable time (as both time and dollars) hashing and re-hashing issues that we think are settled.

There is strong personal conflict, also, that appears to be a result of mis-understanding, and mis-communication.

I'd like to be a part of bringing us together more effectively.

Not an IT issue, per se. But I can see that there are probably parallels between IT and 'the rest of the company'.

by seanferd

am I to work off the basis that your translation problem lies in who was treated for what, and are they improving - that sort of thing?

If these are trained psychological professionals, they should have no problem making use of the DSM current version for describing the clients' ilnesses/issues. They have to report on these thing along with prognosis assessments, treatment paths, and assessments of progress in the private sector all the time, especially for insurance companies.

If this is the issue, you just need to tell your psych types to get with the program.

Otherwise, I suppose I'd need to understand further wherein the disconnect lies.

by ansugisalas

I can think of a number of ways to ease things up.
First of all, it'd be nice if your abstracts get to see that you're not simply harrassing them (that is often the case if they don't understand how your work benefits your shared goals), so if they get an idea about the money flow, and how your role is essential to allowing them to fulfill theirs, that would at least get some of them interested in communicating with you.
That leads to a second avenue: it might not be possible to speak with all of them very well, a bridgehead/contact/informant on "the other side" could help, either by collating some of the data you need, or by helping you formulate your questions in a way salient to the less communicative ones. Ultimately a goal should be in obliterating the perception of a divide.

One possible solution would be recruiting a sociology student, they, at least some of them have extensive training in canvassing and mapping of dynamic structures, also some have psychological training. They usually are very interested in getting their hands dirty, and building up real work experience, so it might be possible, maybe even a small team, if you have a lot of people to cover.

Those are the starting points i could think of just now, tell me if any of it is useful.

by boxfiddler

See what I mean? I'm having a difficult time expressing what I see...

Within their clinical purview there are few to no problems.

The disconnect lies, I think, in communications between the abstracts and the concretes. Also, a degree of inflexibility on the part of we concretes and the purpose we serve in the organization.

Maybe I should have gone with 'absolutists/relativists'. Certain 'absolute' practicalities may be the problem. That, and never knowing when an answer is a yes or a no.

etu

by ansugisalas

I get that all the time with my wife, she's hardcore conditioned for sociology, whereas I'm similarly conditioned for linguistics. It can get ugly, but it's always refreshing.

Your abstracts may be using a discourse they feel to be less violent, and that often means not saying straight up what you want. One basic problem is this: a clear request is avoided, because it's hard to turn down without losing face, but the veiled request (seen by concretes to be a nonvital request because of it's nondemanding wording) can in fact be a vital request, one that can't be turned down without generating bad feelings.

Does this sound familiar?

by seanferd

I dig your analysis and very specific identification of that bit of social interaction.

Er, and begging your pardon for the horrible pun.

by boxfiddler

Thank you. How to work towards generating 'vitality' is next up? Along with how to soften us concretes a bit.

by nexs

Well, I'd first confirm the sort of information that the money providers require and have our concrete minded people simplify it.
Not simplify - "You're an idiot" simplify, but simplify - "I don't want to spend a long time filling out a form" simplify.

Basically, I'd create a form that's easy to expand on for the reporting, and simple enough to make it easy for the "Therapidicians" (I made that word up!) to quickly and easily record anything of interest.

by drowningnotwaving

Amongst a myriad other things, some of my clients at present a grants-based NFPs. In one case 100% givernment and in another 95% privately funded.

At one level, their 'concrete' communications are based pretty much on numbers.

What money came in, what is was allocated to, how it was spent, did I have proper controls on purchasing etc etc. The reporting or prudential side of the conversation.

At the next level is analytics - if I do X, how many cases can I solve per $1,000 rather than doing Y. This is the "effectiveness" or "bang-for-buck" side of the conversation.

(Obviously, please insert parameters that make sense in your valuable program, but I hope my point isn't confusing in itself).

This gives the external people something that they can grasp and understand. It lays a foundation for discussion.

Clearly (and obviously (or hopefully) without breaking prudential or moral boundaries!!), your presentation or management of this information goes a long way to setting their expectations of what you may need for the future!

The numbers do no more than establish a basis for the abstract discussion, but they bring a level of comfort to the external parties a) that you know what you are doing with their money; b) that their funds are not being screwed by your sister's subcontracting firm; and c) they can have some input into where the best spend of future funds may be.

I may be completely off track for which I say 'oops'! In the absence of "Concrete" issues I chose my own abstraction of a possible solution.

Ooops again. :)

by boxfiddler

is internal communications between the abstracts and the concretes. Internal communications are ineffective and frustrating.

Abstract A has a theory s/he expects Concrete B to apply. Concrete B is unqualified (not a Psych major, let's say, but a Business Administration major - administration of a program being the purpose for the position s/he fills). Abstract A is unable to effectively communicate how to practically apply the theory to Concrete B, and further is apparently unaware that s/he is unable to communicate the information needed by Concrete B to apply said theory. Concrete B, on the other hand, is equally unable to communicate to Abstract A that s/he doesn't understand how to apply said theory.

Concrete C needs a 'yes' or 'no' answer in order to complete a task. S/he asks the boss - Abstract D - the question, garnering a response that's 10 minutes of both relevant and irrelevant information that might be a 'maybe'. Concrete C tries again, using different terminology, Abstract D answers again using different terminology but leaving the same possible 'maybe' as the answer.

If we can't overcome this communications issue, we're not going to last.

Gods, I hope this is better.

If I can't put it together well, I surely won't be able to communicate it to the rest of us. :0

etu
PS. Thanks for that response. You set me to thinking about it a little differently.

by seanferd

Nails down the issues much better.

Where I was coming from previously was based on this: The accountability our various funders expect of us requires strong concrete minds in order to provide the level of detailed reporting they seek. I thought you weren't getting the proper dollars-to-donuts accounting. Seems more like there is just a general disconnect (I need specific orders, not waffling or a handful of suggestive possibilities.)

Sounds like it is time for a Team Building Retreat. (Oh Lawlz no!)

Well, someone needs to communicate effectively to these people that they are not communicating effectively, and that they need to respect some boundaries. It isn't the office manager's job to find ways to apply a social worker's psych theories, but maybe if the social worker has an actual plan that might be useful for the organization, it could be implemented if proven so.

Who gets to do this and how, I couldn't begin to guess. I'd do it, with enough exposure and authoritah. ;)

by ansugisalas

It could be a single person, or two people from either side that work well together.
You're talking different languages, but that's obscured by the fact that you all nominally speak using the same lexicons and grammars.

You need a translator/interpreter to be effective, perhaps a crossfielder like a sociologist, or perhaps one of your "abstracts" that has proven to be more able to understand you.

by seanferd

That's a great idea - a volunteer with a human communication interest. This brings to mind the thought that maybe a business process needs to be worked out, at least in the sense of a "formal" framework that would smooth over the the vagaries which lead to the sort of mis-communication described.

If the majority of the problem is more interpersonal, and less business process -oriented, our volunteer needs to find a way to make each end of this spectrum understand that the other has done its best to understand what it wants, but it isn't possible without each side learning something of the other's idiom. And maybe lay out some boundaries, if necessary.

Certainly, a disinterested third party could make a lot of that easier.

edit
hrm. And thinking of the dynamic of the dominant group - they would expect the smaller (concrete) population to pretty much go all the way to understand their culture. But the concrete types can't be expected to have all the background that comes with a degree and practice which the abstracts have. And obviously, things will not last if they continue doing whatever it is which is causing potential problems at the management - funding/board interface.

I find myself wanting to hear an example conversation.

by santeewelding

To the wrong post.

I have submitted your observation to my Presidium. May take a while before a decision is handed down.

by ron k.

The goal was to write down your strengths on sticky notes. Everyone wrote down a handful while the boss wrote down dozens. Her first one read, "I'm a minimalist." :D I so do not miss work but for it's entertainment value.

by ansugisalas

Must*be*centre*of*attention!
You'd think bosses would tend to sort of lie low and scope out the team mechanics on things like that.

by dadspad

If communications is the primary problem, and no solution seems possible, then you might need an intermediary. Sometimes it can be simple. Earlier, someone said an intern might work. Another suggestion is a really good secretary or, more specifically, a Clerk Specialist. This will put a buffer between groups as well as function as a source of paperwork, project help for both.

You would be surprised how effective this can be.

by covisions

Sadly personality type often dictates that preference is the right way. The truth is that the head is not much use without a heart and the hands done work too well as well. Bot ned underlying spirit. My advice understand that rationalism is in reality alchemy and the beasts need soothing so that those with compassion can get on with doing what you clearly and importantly do in the world...healing the results of such stupid battles.

Neville Coventry

This discussion is closed to new replies.