Cluster without Fluster

By Roy Zazeraj

"There are 3 kinds of people - those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what the hell just happened" Anon.

Understanding those neighbours

Ah yes. The Big Question - "what makes other people tick?" It's one of life's great and enduring imponderables, with us no doubt since humankind developed its first reflective brain cell. One can just imagine Glog the caveman scratching his furry hide in wonder at the antics of the Glug family inhabiting the cave next door. And it will be with us until friendly RAMbo the Robot switches off the last remaining human's life support system. One hopes the latter will be the body corporate secretary so that minutes are right up to date! And if we don't understand what makes other people tick, how do we ensure harmonious relationships between neighbours? We clearly need some skills and tools.

We both live in complexes and we are complex beings, driven by many forces, internal and external. In truth, we often have little insight into our own motivations, let alone those of others ("and thank goodness for that" say the psychologists, patting their wallets). This all makes for a fascinating world, pregnant with emotion, ranging from unfathomable love to blind hatred - and with the potential for conflict all along the continuum. People are intractably unique and different, and often frustratingly difficult to understand, even when we have lived in close proximity for many years. What a boring world it would be if this were not the case!

But, difficult or not, there are ways of categorising different character types - and ways a little more useful than in the quote above. With some insight into these, we can better understand ourselves and the other people we interact with. So let's chose one. While not going back quite as far as Glog the caveman, we can use the basic categories set out by Hippocrates (460 - 380 BC) - he of Hippocratic Oath fame. His categories are just as useful today, and show that attempting to understand our fellow Man is no new quest. Hippocrates used the (now quaint) terms Melancholic, Sanguine, Choleric and Phlegmatic to describe four different character or personality types. I have adapted the terminology for more modern times (with that of Hippocrates in parenthesis). For illustration we will use the behaviour of members at a body corporate meeting. None of the categories are good or bad, just different. And they each have advantages and disadvantages. They relate to the world differently and (important in this context) interact with others differently. Any ideal group would have examples of them all - as they all have a contribution to make.

The Fact-Fanatic (The Melancholic): Fact-Fanatics can range from being simply interested in the detail of things to being totally besotted with analysing the minutiae. They are concerned with accuracy, tend to ask lots of questions (about objective facts) and are logical and systematic. They can also appear to others as somewhat impersonal and unemotional. Fact Fanatics have a high need to be right and will argue the detail before coming to slow and very deliberate decisions. They appear more interested in the correctness of the facts than the impact on people - they worship at the altar of perfectionism. Fact Fanatics can frustrate others with what can be seen as endless questions, delaying decision-making and needlessly stretching out meetings. However, they can play a useful role by ensuring all the important facts are tabled and evaluated. A Fact-Fanatic's opinions are worth listening to as they are carefully considered.

The Fun-Finder (The Sanguine): Often the life and soul of the party, Fun-Finders are generally impatient with detail, spontaneous and impulsive. They can be noisy, talkative, friendly, boisterous and good company. If you are looking for the latest joke, or humorous aside, look no further than the Fun-Finder. They will be ill prepared for any meeting (they are not really into detail), enjoy socialising beforehand and keen to get proceedings over with so that the socialising can begin again. Fun-Finders do not understand Fact-Fanatics. They love people and interaction and enjoy socials, parties or get-togethers of any description. They like to be liked and seek approval. They can also be very inspirational, persuading people with creativity and emotion rather than facts.

The Go-Getter (The Choleric): These are easily recognisable as people who want action and results - quickly. They are often "take charge" types who don't hesitate to assume leadership and issue instructions. Go-Getters are direct and to-the-point and impatient with too much analysing and detail. In meetings they will come across as confident, assertive and challenging and will push for decisions to be made, taking whatever risks they deem necessary. They are the practical ones and are not easily discouraged by obstacles or opposition. Go-Getters are keen to be in control and drive for success. They value achievement highly and can make things happen.

The People-Person (The Phlegmatic): These are the people who oil the works of social intercourse and work hard at maintaining good relationships within the complex. A People-Person is sympathetic, kind, caring and respectful of others, and not keen to fiddle with the status quo if it is likely to upset anyone. They want people to accept one-another and will be clearly troubled if there is conflict in a meeting. They will ask relationship and feeling questions, listen well, suggest compromises and offer help, all in the interests of good-neighbourliness. Sometimes their concern for people can outweigh the need to achieve any results - they would rather not make a decision than upset anyone.

So there you are. A necessarily simplified analysis, but still useful for identifying different characters and interactive styles. Recognise yourself? Recognise the neighbour you always seem to be butting heads with? More importantly, do you see where the potential for conflict can come from between different interactive styles? Of course, we need to be wary of jumping to hasty conclusions and pigeon holing people into stereotyped boxes. It needs some thought. But if we can constructively use this sort of information to create better understanding between people, we all stand to benefit. It can prevent conflict, help resolve conflict and help maximise the contribution that different people can make. Practice your ability to understand what makes others tick and you won't be left to wonder, "what the hell just happened?"