12.1 Ways of Communicating and VARK Language Style Preferences

Having established what to say, CM3 turns to how to say it. Two lists are examinable: the ways in which we communicate, and the VARK language style preferences.

Ways in which we communicate and connect with people

Two points catch candidates out.

Listening is a way of communicating. It sits in the list alongside the output modes, which is not an accident. In change work, listening is often the strongest communication a leader can perform — it signals respect and interest more convincingly than any statement, and it is the only mode that generates information rather than just transmitting it.

Verbal includes written. In everyday usage "verbal" often means spoken as opposed to written. Here it covers both, because both use words. The distinction that matters in CM3 is words versus non-words, not speech versus text.

The emphasis on non-verbal connects back to the finding that words make up only around 7 per cent of the message, with tone, body language and leaders' actions carrying the rest.

Tone and language style

Choose the right tone and style for the audience, and consider the type of change you are aiming to bring about. Tone that suits a routine process update will read as flippant when announcing redundancies; tone that suits a serious restructure will read as ominous attached to a minor system upgrade.

VARK language style preferences

VARK describes the different preferences we have for receiving and processing information:

The kinaesthetic definition

Kinaesthetic is the most examined of the four, and its definition has two parts worth memorising. It relates to doing and experiencing things — not to "practical" or "hands-on" in a loose sense. And it is explicitly not a single mode, because doing something engages several senses at once.

That second clause has a practical consequence: kinaesthetic preference cannot be served by adding a diagram or a recording. It requires an actual opportunity to do the thing, which in change terms means a practice environment, a pilot, a walkthrough of the real process — the same interventions that build ADKAR's ability.

VARK and learning styles are different models

Candidates sometimes merge VARK with Honey and Mumford's activist, reflector, theorist and pragmatist. They are distinct:

• VARK is about the sensory channel through which someone prefers to receive information — visual, aural, read/write, kinaesthetic
• Honey and Mumford is about the stage of the learning cycle someone prefers — doing, reflecting, theorising, applying

They overlap at the edges — a kinaesthetic preference and an activist style both favour hands-on experience — but they answer different questions and CM3 places them in different syllabus areas.

Applying the preferences in change communication

The practical rule is the same as for learning styles: cover the range rather than picking one. A well-designed change communication offer typically includes:

• A one-page visual — process diagram, before-and-after picture, timeline — for visual preferences
• A recorded briefing or a live session with Q&A for aural preferences
• A written summary people can read and annotate for reading/writing preferences
• A hands-on session, demo environment or walkthrough for kinaesthetic preferences

This is usually the same content in four formats rather than four different pieces of work, which makes it far cheaper than it first appears. It also serves the guidance to repeat information and make it available in multiple formats so people can digest and process it in a way that suits them.

And it connects to the accessibility point: some people may not have easy access to technology and therefore require printed formats. Format variety serves both preference and access.

Listening as an active practice

Because listening is one of the four ways of communicating, it deserves treating as a designed activity rather than an attitude. In change work, three distinctions make it operational.

Listening to gather versus listening to reassure. These require different behaviour. A leader who responds to every concern with reassurance is not gathering information; they are closing the conversation. Where the purpose is discovery, the useful response to a concern is a question about it.

Listening in the right forum. People will say things in a small group with a trusted peer that they will never say in a town hall, however genuine the invitation. Designing listening means choosing venues where the thing you need to hear can actually be said — which is why change agent networks and small participatory sessions produce better information than open forums.

Visibly acting on what is heard. This is the symbolic point from the hearts-and-minds material: how responses to feedback are managed symbolises the extent to which contributions are valued. Listening that produces no visible consequence teaches people that speaking is pointless, which is worse for the change team than never having asked.