Imagine that you and a colleague (call him Chad) have conversed about a problem that has arisen and which affects you both. You explained what you understood about it and what you didn't, and what you could do about it and what you couldn't. Chad did the same. Eventually, you agreed on a solution. Or so you thought.
Next day, Chad texts you. He now believes that parts of the problem that you explained to him are unclear, or that the solution you both adopted is no longer suitable, or he's troubled by some irrelevant factor. He wants another meeting, so you agree to talk by phone. In a quick, ten-minute conversation you clear up all objections, he's happy again, and you're both back on track with the original deal.
But this was the third time this happened. What is it with this guy? Can't he remember what you tell him? Or does he just not listen? Or perhaps he's not smart enough for his job?
Miscommunication is a failure to communicate clearly. Misapprehension is a failure to comprehend or understand. Misremembering is a failure to recall accurately. Sometimes, one or more of those explanations for post-agreement confusion do apply, but after someone reaches a certain level of responsibility in an organization, those explanations become improbable. Working in a complex, fast-paced, knowledge-oriented workplace requires a decent memory, good listening skills, significant intelligence, and an ability to learn quickly — and retain what you learn. So what else can be happening?
One possibility is what I call counter-communication. Counter-communication is communication from a third party who contradicts or otherwise undermines something previously communicated between the parties to the agreement. In other words, someone else might be talking to Chad.
We tend to We tend to assume that when
we come to an agreement with
others, and the basis of the
agreement is clear to all,
the agreement will standassume that when we come to an agreement with others, and the basis of the agreement is clear to all, the agreement will stand. We tend to assume that the parties won't be conferring with anyone hostile to the agreement, who might not grasp the issues, or who might have a personal agenda, or who might intentionally omit or misrepresent facts so as to call the agreement into question. We tend to assume that counter-communication will not occur.
Sometimes counter-communication happens. If it has happened to you, assume that agreements will be exposed to counter-communication. Anticipate the counter-communicators by providing your collaborators with re-enforcement in advance. Be explicit. For example, if one of the issues is whether Engineering will cooperate, you could say, "Chad, that's right, we are assuming that Engineering can provide that information by the 15th. I spoke with Anna in Engineering, and she says they already have it and that they'll send it tomorrow." By giving your partners information they can use to refute the counter-communicator, your own further direct involvement might not be required. It's nice when it works out that way. Keep in mind, though, that next time, your counter-communicator might anticipate your anticipating. Top Next Issue
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.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.
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 Workplace Politics:
- When It's Just Not Your Job
- Has your job become frustrating because the organization has lost its way? Is circumventing the craziness
making you crazy too? How can you recover your perspective despite the situation?
- Active Deceptions at Work
- Among the vast family of workplace deceptions, those that involve presenting fiction as reality are
among the most exasperating, because we sometimes feel fooled or gullible. Lies are the simplest example
of this type, but there are others, and some are fiendishly clever.
- Some Hazards of Skip-Level Interviews: I
- Although skip-level interviews have their place, they can be dangerous, explosive, and harmful to the
organization. What are the dangers?
- Congruent Decision-Making: II
- Decision-makers who rely on incomplete or biased information are more likely to make decisions that
don't fit the reality of their organizations. Here's Part II of a framework for making decisions that fit.
- I Don't Understand: II
- Unclear, incomplete, or ambiguous statements are problematic, in part, because we need to seek clarification.
How can we do that without seeming to be hostile, threatening, or disrespectful?
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus
- Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies
- In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. Available here and by RSS on July 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.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 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
- Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?
Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.