Overcoming an urge to slap his own forehead, Jesse realized that they'd wasted the past six weeks. Just to be sure, he asked, "Courtney, are you saying, for example, that the Tier 2 languages aren't needed until Q3 next year?"
"Yes. I don't know how to be clearer. No Tier 2 languages till Q3 next year." Courtney was cool on the outside, but really steamed inside. She looked across the table at Miguel, and nodding slightly, replayed in her mind what he'd said on the way over: "These guys are genetically incapable of delivering anything within a decade of the plan date."
"I see," Jesse continued. "When you said 'full compliance with the spec Rev 2.07,' we thought you meant 'full compliance with the entire spec Rev 2.07,' which included languages. Now I understand that you meant only 'full compliance with the networking spec Rev 2.07."
We can't control
what others do
with what we sayMix-ups like this cost real money. One small word — 'entire' vs. 'networking' — made all the difference. Here are some reasons why the receiver might not receive the message the sender sends:
- Wandering attention
- We get distracted, and don't listen carefully. Or sometimes, we don't feel the need to listen.
- We assume that our first interpretation is correct
- This can happen because we anticipate or have pre-set expectations. Sometimes receivers even "repair" the message they receive, because it makes no sense as received.
- Differences in usage
- Sender and receiver might use the language differently. Perhaps they're a different sex, or in a different profession, as Jesse and Courtney are, or have different native languages.
- Past associations
- Our personal history with concepts, people, procedures, or technologies can be misleading.
- Anticipated discounting or padding
- Receivers might discount estimates or promises, because of past experience with the sender or with others. Or senders, anticipating a discount, might inflate estimates or promises differently from the receiver's discount.
And sometimes we just make mistakes. It's all very frustrating, and tempers can flare.
Language is ambiguous. When we're stressed or hurrying to save time, we don't check carefully enough for unrecognized ambiguity. But we can reduce the effects of message mismatches if we keep two ideas in mind.
- We can't control what others do with what we say
- Once the words are out, it's up to the hearer (or reader) to interpret them. We'll feel better about unexpected interpretations if we give up the idea that we control how people interpret our words.
- Let others check it out
- When we hear, "Let me see if I've got this right," we sometimes feel as if our competence or integrity is in doubt. But if we can learn to interpret this as a simple verification of understanding, we gain a valuable tool for preventing misunderstanding.
And you can check it out, too. Whether you're receiving or sending, you can uncover message mismatches with examples, what-ifs, restatements, and even humor. Whenever you try, you'll almost surely uncover at least some tiny differences. The time to worry is when you don't. Top Next Issue
The article you've been reading is an archived issue of Point Lookout, my weekly newsletter. I've been publishing it since January, 2001, free to all subscribers, over the Web, and via RSS. You can help keep it free by donating either as an individual or as an organization. You'll receive in return my sincere thanks — and the comfort of knowing that you've helped to propagate insights and perspectives that can help make our workplaces a little more human-friendly. More
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenogMhuqCxAnbfLvzbner@ChacigAthhhYwzZDgxshoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:
- Virtual Communications: III
- Participating in or managing a virtual team presents special communications challenges. Here's Part
III of some guidelines for communicating with members of virtual teams.
- We Are All People
- When a team works to solve a problem, it is the people of that team who do the work. Remembering that
we're all people — and all different people — is an important key to success.
- Completism is the desire to create or acquire a complete set of something. In our personal lives, it
drives collectors to pay high prices for rare items that "complete the set." In business it
drives us to squander our resources in surprising ways.
- Virtual Presentations
- Modern team efforts almost certainly involve teleconferences, and many teleconferences include presentations,
often augmented with video or graphics. Delivering these virtual presentations effectively requires
an approach tailored to the medium.
- Teamwork Myths: I vs. We
- In high performance teams, cooperative behavior is a given. But in the experience of many, truly cooperative
behavior is so rare that they believe that something fundamental is at work — that cooperative
behavior requires surrendering the self, which most people are unwilling to do. It's another teamwork myth.
See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming December 6: Off-Putting and Conversational Narcissism at Work: III
- Having off-putting interactions is one of four themes of conversational narcissism. Here are seven behavioral patterns that relate to off-putting interactions and how abusers use them to control conversations. Available here and by RSS on December 6.
- And on December 13: Contrary Indicators of Psychological Safety: I
- To take the risks that learning and practicing new ways requires, we all need a sense that trial-and-error approaches are safe. Organizations seeking to improve processes would do well to begin by assessing their level of psychological safety. Available here and by RSS on December 13.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenogMhuqCxAnbfLvzbner@ChacigAthhhYwzZDgxshoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- "Rick is a dynamic presenter who thinks on his feet to keep the material relevant to the
— Tina L. Lawson, Technical Project Manager, BankOne (now J.P. Morgan Chase)
- "Rick truly has his finger on the pulse of teams and their communication."
— Mark Middleton, Team Lead, SERS