Someone has just made a statement that seems unclear, incomplete, or ambiguous. Their manner suggests that from their perspective, the statement is clear, complete, and unambiguous, and they're about to go on to the next thing. What do we do? Do we abruptly interject with, "Hold on there podner, not so fast." Or do we politely ask, "Excuse me, please, I'm confused." Or do we nod knowingly as if we understand? Or do nothing? There are many options.
There are also risks. If you don't understand at the moment, and you don't reveal the fact that you don't understand, and people later find out that you didn't understand and still don't understand, they might conclude that you're a bumbling fool. Worse, they might realize that you've been intentionally covering your confusion for a while. Some people will interpret that as misleading or dishonest.
If the thing you didn't understand (call it "A") is in wide use in subsequent conversation (about items I'll call "B", "C", and "D"), you'll probably be confused about B, C, and D, too, especially if you need to understand A to understand B, C, and D. Then, when people find out that you didn't understand A, they might realize that you couldn't possibly have understood B, C, and D. Their frustration about having to explain the whole thing again can express itself as disrespect for you or anger toward you.
Failing to If you don't understand something,
and you conceal your confusion,
people might distrust you when
they finally learn of your subterfugefully grasp A is like taking on a debt. Whatever happens after that corresponds to the interest charges on that debt. The interest charges include the confusion about B, C, and D; being regarded by others as having been dishonest; having to go back and clear up the confusion about B, C, and D; and the loss of trust. And once you take on such a debt, you might never be trusted again, because your "credit report" has a bad mark on it. If that happens, your simple nods of agreement might be met with open skepticism.
Choosing not to seek clarification can be a viable option if you believe that you'll be able to clarify it on your own in short order, either by native intelligence, or context, or Google, or a trusted colleague, or some other means. The risk is that clarifying it yourself will take so long that intervening conversations will create more trouble.
Let's begin in this Part I by examining the sources of any reluctance to seek immediate clarification of something we don't understand. We'll use that insight next time to find tactics for seeking clarification more safely and for defining circumstances for using those tactics.
Here are three common sources of reluctance to ask for clarification.
- Damage to your image or self-image
- With respect to concerns about your own image or self-image, there are at least two sources of reluctance to seek clarification. They involve reluctance to reveal your own ignorance or confusion, and reluctance to reveal that you've forgotten something important.
- Although revealing such things can be costly and painful, these options can be less costly and less painful than the alternatives. If so, forthrightness is a better option. Make the choice consciously.
- Fear of personal criticism
- In the context of seeking clarification, personal criticism is any overt negative commentary about your abilities or talents, based on your having sought clarification of the ambiguous or incomplete statement of another. In most cases I've witnessed, such behavior in a group is counter-effective and destructive of relationships within that group. Moreover, it can deter others from seeking clarifications, which can be harmful to the group's output quality.
- Because a pattern of criticizing people for seeking clarification is likely a performance issue, only supervisors can do much about it. If fear of personal criticism is based in the reality of the situation, it's unlikely to be the only problem you face. It can be an indicator that it's time to move on.
- Fear of offending the other party
- Some anticipate a risk of giving offense by seeking clarification of a statement made by someone who believes they've spoken clearly and unambiguously. The risk is real.
- Multiple factors can contribute to the seriousness of the risk. For example, the risk of seeking clarification from someone increases with the difference in organizational rank. Past behavior can also be an indicator. If the person has appeared to be offended by past attempts to seek clarification, we must assess the risk of offense as elevated.
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? rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.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:
- Projection Errors at Work
- Often, at work, we make interpretations of the behavior of others. Sometimes we base these interpretations
not on actual facts, but on our perceptions of facts. And our perceptions are sometimes erroneous.
- Obstacles to Finding the Reasons Why
- When we investigate what went wrong, we sometimes encounter obstacles. Interviewing witnesses and participants
doesn't always uncover the reasons why. What are these obstacles?
- Fooling Ourselves
- Humans have impressive abilities to convince themselves of things that are false. One explanation for
this behavior is the theory of cognitive dissonance.
- 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.
- Columbo Strategy
- A late 20th-century television detective named Columbo had a unique approach to cracking murder cases.
His method is just as effective at work when the less powerful must deal with the powerful.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming October 23: Power Distance and Teams
- One of the attributes of team cultures is something called power distance, which is a measure of the overall comfort people have with inequality in the distribution of power. Power distance can determine how well a team performs when executing high-risk projects. Available here and by RSS on October 23.
- And on October 30: Power Distance and Risk
- Managing or responding to project risks is much easier when team culture encourages people to report problems and question any plans they have reason to doubt. Here are five examples that show how such encouragement helps to manage risk. Available here and by RSS on October 30.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.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 Race to the South Pole: Lessons in Leadership
On 14 December 1911, four men led by Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole. Thirty-five days later, Robert F. Scott and four others followed. Amundsen had won the race to the pole. Amundsen's party returned to base on 26 January 1912. Scott's party perished. As historical drama, why this happened is interesting enough. But to organizational leaders, business analysts, project sponsors, and project managers, the story is fascinating. We'll use the history of this event to explore lessons in leadership and its application to organizational efforts. A fascinating and refreshing look at leadership from the vantage point of history. Read more about this program.
Here's a date for this program:
- Baldwin-Wallace University, 275 Eastland Road, Berea, Ohio
44017: November 7,
Kerzner Lecture Series/International Project Management Day, sponsored by Baldwin Wallace University and the Northeast Ohio Chapter of the Project Management Institute.
- Baldwin-Wallace University, 275 Eastland Road, Berea, Ohio 44017: November 7, Kerzner Lecture Series/International Project Management Day, sponsored by Baldwin Wallace University and the Northeast Ohio Chapter of the Project Management Institute. Register now.
- 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.