Based on the tenets of the FADT (feeler, analyst, driver, theorist) behavior approach, ARC Analysis provides a fast self-assessment process to determine ability to communicate with others across cultural boundaries. This approach is also explored as Carl Jung's "four temperaments" (thinker, feeler, intuitor, and sensor). Wilson Learning Systems described these as the four "social styles" (analytical, driver, amiable, and expressive). Jim Cathcart and Tony Allessandra refer us to the Nightingale-Conant course for more learning on communication styles. Their group consists of another unique arrangement (thinkers, directors, relaters, and socializers).

Many of us communicate using a mix of these types. Some of us are all three while others may have difficulty aligning with any particular form of communication. Others find that a particular type dominates their communication style. Communication happens in many forms today. But you can better understand the communication partner whether they are on the phone, in person, or online using these barometers as they may apply.

Here is how this works to analyze your communication partner. Consider that you are the analyzer. When dealing with a realizer, you might feel that the individual is impulsive, rushed, and a poor planner. You might view that the conceptualizer is unrealistic, superficial, and easily impressed. But what happens when one analyzer meets another analyzer? Further, the realizer views you as being indecisive, slow, and overcautious. The conceptualizer views you as serious, anal, rigid, and detailed-oriented. Does the analyzer view other analyzers the same way? If the analyzer has met another analyzer, chances are they will communicate well having similar behaviors, wants, and needs in the communication process. This is likely true for all communication styles. But if the set of communicators is too anal, neither will progress. Perhaps the more impulsive realizer will move things along. I have been examining the formula to the communication styles to determine which set of styles might work best together. There is a lot of science behind ARC Analysis and similar devices. No one can truly trust a device until they have tested its application.

I had no idea that this tool was so needed until I began dealing with people regularly at a distance. Without realizing it, I somewhat utilized the ARC Analysis approach in my teaching online learners for several years. At a distance it can be challenging to understand others in the distance communication process. Without hand gestures and eye contact, the receiver of the information is hindered. It is difficult to determine that the individual on the other end of the phone or online is a analyzer, realizer, or conceptualizer. Speech recognition is the sole device for making these determinations. An individual with formal and time oriented speech/writing can be identified as an analyzer, an individual with bottom line and immediate speech/writing can be identified as a realizer, and an individual with dramatic and exploratory speech/writing can be identified as a conceptualizer.

Once we can identify our own communication style we are better able to communicate with individuals in person as well as through electronic means. ARC Analysis is an enabler in all communication channels. In writing there is a bit of an additional challenge. One must be able to determine speech patterns through the written word. Writing is often not a trusted barometer for conveyance. Many times the reader draws independent assumptions. We can likely recall our grade school years in which classmates each drew a unique interpretation of the same reading.

Another element of the remote communication process is the phenomenon called, "psychological distance" (Cocking & Renninger, 1993). Without visual cues we are unable to relate fully to the communication partner. The inability to relate can cause us to detach and dehumanize others. Further, there is a greater likelihood that we will not fully understand others at a distance and it may take a great deal more effort and time to overcome such psychological roadblocks.

Communication devices such as ARC Analysis can help bridge the communication gap in any event. If after much time you finally discover that the person you thought you were dealing with turns out to be someone not at all like you pictured, consider that some of our greatest philosophers profess that time is not a test of truth. Time spent in a relationship does not mean that the relationship is a good one.

My personal experience has been that it took some years to finally realize that someone who I strived to help to succeed only turned out to be someone who was exploiting my resources, and my helping nature. I was blind in my steadfast conviction that at any moment I would succeed in my efforts. The day never came, but the experience has heightened my interest in understanding the communication process and to explore what else I can and should be doing in life to be more effective. It is a reason to keep perfecting devices like ARC Analysis. Perhaps more importantly, it is a reason to continually strive to understand self and others.

The order of terms I used in 1999 reflects a CAR model as noted in Figure 3. I reordered this version of my model to reflect my earlier (1982) approach as noted in Figure 2. Rather than use the past/present/future terms, I use past/present/potential in my ARC Analysis model. This is a common string of terms that I became familiar with in participating in various quality assessment training programs since the 1980s.

Sources

AHFX (2005). If you only understood your customer's personality style. Internet Marketing Tips.

Allio & Associates. (1975, June). Planning review. North American Society for Corporate Planning.