Long-Loop Conversations: Clearing the Fog

In the first part of this series about long-loop conversations in the context of virtual teams, we explored asking questions that can reduce the number of exchanges required to get definitive responses. In this part, we examine ways to clear the fog — the confusions, blind spots and omissions that impede our way to clarity.

Understanding how fog forms and persists in the long-loop environment is helpful in itself. Here are three practices that tend to create or preserve fog.

Fear of offending others

Sometimes people withhold questions because they fear that asking them could offend others. Askers fear that their questions might seem too fundamental or too obvious. Sometimes they've asked the question before, but they weren't satisfied with the response; sometimes the asking led to tension.

Fear of self-disclosure

At times, we withhold comments or questions that could be helpful to the collaboration, but which also risk disclosing our own ignorance, shortcomings, or past errors. Unless the other collaborators raise the topic, this withholding can bar the group from exploring the issue.

Defenses and defensive attacks

When we bristle in response to others' comments, we signal that the conversation has crossed into unacceptability. If the topic is relevant to the collaboration, defensiveness and defensive attacks can prevent the collaborators from investigating relevant and important territory.

Here are four questions we can use to clear the fog, even if we're unaware of its existence.

What should I be asking you that I haven't asked yet?

The answer to this question might expose the obvious: questions you never thought to ask. But if the responder tells you that you haven't asked a question, and you feel that you have, this exchange might expose questions asked ineffectively, or the asker's misunderstanding or ignoring of a question you did ask.

Do you think I might be confused about anything? If so, what?

This question gives the responder permission to suggest that the asker might be confused. The responder might not accept the offer, but making the offer enhances the chance that the responder might surface new information.

What questions haven't you asked yet?

Responders usually Sometimes people withhold
questions because they fear
that asking them could
offend othersknow that they can ask questions. But this question invites responders to focus on questions they've withheld. Those questions are often the most productive.

Are there any risks we haven't considered?

Risks that haven't been mentioned can be especially fruitful, because they often include the so-called "elephants in the room." This question gives people license to discuss those elephants.

These questions help even when you don't know you need help. They work by encouraging participants to seek unpleasant information, or to reveal information they might be withholding. But they depend for their effectiveness on a commitment by the asker not to be offended, and a commitment by the responder to be honest and forthright. Have I left anything out?   First issue in this series    Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Is your organization a participant in one or more global teams? Are you the owner/sponsor of a global team? Are you managing a global team? Is everything going well, or at least as well as any project goes? Probably not. Many of the troubles people encounter are traceable to the obstacles global teams face when building working professional relationships from afar. Read 303 Tips for Virtual and Global Teams to learn how to make your global and distributed teams sing. Order Now!

For more suggestions for the long-loop environment, "Long-Loop Conversations: Clearing the Fog," Point Lookout for June 24, 2009; and "Long-Loop Conversations: Anticipation," Point Lookout for August 12, 2009.

Your comments are welcome

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.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

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.

Related articles

More articles on Effective Communication at Work:

The True Costs of Indirectness

Indirect communications are veiled, ambiguous, excessively diplomatic, or conveyed to people other than the actual target. We often use indirectness to avoid confrontation or to avoid dealing with conflict. It can be an expensive practice.

Long-Loop Conversations: Asking Questions

In virtual or global teams, where remote collaboration is the rule, waiting for the answer to a simple question can take a day or more. And when the response finally arrives, it's often just another question. Here are some suggestions for framing questions that are clear enough to get answers quickly.

Recognizing Hurtful Dismissiveness

"Never mind" can mean anything from "Excuse me, I'm sorry," to, "You lame idiot, it's beyond you," and more. The former is apologetic and courteous. The latter is dismissive and hurtful. We have dozens of verbal tactics for hurting each other dismissively. How can we recognize them?

Ethical Debate at Work: I

When we decide issues at work on any basis other than the merits, we elevate the chances of making bad decisions. Here are some guidelines for ethical debate.

Conversation Irritants: II

Workplace conversation is difficult enough, because of stress, time pressure, and the complexity of our discussions. But it's even more vexing when people actually try to be nasty, unclear, and ambiguous. Here's Part II of a small collection of their techniques.

See also Effective Communication at Work and Effective Communication at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming May 14: Working with the Overconfident

A cognitive bias known as the Overconfidence Effect causes us to overestimate the reliability of our judgments. Decisions we make based on those judgments are therefore suspect. But there are steps we can take to make our confidence levels more realistic, and thus make our decisions more reliable. Available here and by RSS on May 14.

And on May 21: Mismanaging Project Managers

Most organizations hold project managers accountable for project performance. But they don't grant those project managers control of needed resources. Nor do they hold project sponsors or other senior managers accountable for the consequences of their actions when they interfere with project work. Here's a catalog of behaviors worth looking at. Available here and by RSS on May 21.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenDJpmhgyaDTwBQXkhner@ChacmGoYuzfZpOvDQdRkoCanyon.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