Anticipate Counter-Communication

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 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 Workplace Politics:

The Deck Chairs of the Titanic: Obvious Waste

Among the most futile and irrelevant actions ever taken in crisis is rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic, which, of course, never actually happened. But in the workplace, we engage in activities just as futile and irrelevant, often outside our awareness. Recognition is the first step to prevention.

Narcissistic Behavior at Work: VI

Narcissistic behavior at work distorts decisions, disrupts relationships, and generates toxic conflict. These consequences limit the ability of the organization to achieve its goals. In this part of our series we examine the effects of exploiting others for personal ends.

Clouted Thinking

When we say that people have "clout" we mean that they have more organizational power or social influence than most others do. But when people with clout try to use it in realms beyond those in which they've earned it, trouble looms.

Responses to Outrageous Demands

From time to time, we might encounter a powerful person making outrageous demands, possibly accompanied by threats if we don't comply. At first, the choice seems to be between acceding to their demands or flat out refusing. There are other possibilities.

Rescheduling: The Paradox of Politics

When the current project schedule no longer leads to acceptable results, we must reschedule. Sometimes political factors compel us to not only delay our results, but also to produce those results in ways that accommodate organizational politics.

See also Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming October 1: On the Risks of Obscuring Ignorance

A common dilemma in knowledge-based organizations: ask for an explanation, or "fake it" until you can somehow figure it out. The choice between admitting your own ignorance or obscuring it can be a difficult one. It has consequences for both the choice-maker and the organization. Available here and by RSS on October 1.

And on October 8: Responding to Workplace Bullying

Effective responses to bullying sometimes include "pushback tactics" that can deter perpetrators from further bullying. Because perpetrators use some of these same tactics, some people have difficulty employing them. But the need is real. Pushing back works. Available here and by RSS on October 8.

Coaching services

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