When someone says something that's unclear, incomplete, or ambiguous, seeking clarification can be daunting, as I discussed last time. Tactics for safely seeking clarification of unclear, incomplete, or ambiguous statements by others tend to be variations on a theme: make plain to your target that you aren't questioning the statement; rather you're merely seeking clarification. In the examples below, I'll use the term seeker to refer to the person seeking clarification, and the term respondent to refer to the person who has made the unclear, incomplete, or ambiguous statement. Each technique below has a label and a sample of the form of the seeker's query.
- Humor: I'm just an old country project manager, so can you please explain for me what X means?
- This is an example of the seeker using humor to defuse the tension that might otherwise accompany the query. The phrase "old country project manager" is a play on "old country lawyer," made famous by Senator Sam Ervin during the Watergate hearings. The surprise twist at the end makes the query mildly funny.
- Guessing: I'd guess that by X you mean Y, is that right?
- In this example, Unclear, incomplete, or ambiguous
statements are problematic, in part,
because we must seek clarification
without seeming to be hostile,
threatening, or disrespectfulby proposing an example interpretation (Y), the seeker provides a concrete example that the respondent can address specifically. It's a closed question, which reduces the respondent's burden compared to an open question. See "Asking Clarifying Questions," Point Lookout for January 14, 2009, for more.
- Using the word guessing is also helpful, because it's somewhat self-deprecating. Choosing a Y that is almost certainly correct adds to your credibility. Following this query with "And what about Z?" can be useful if Z is chosen to be much less certainly correct. That tactic helps to establish the boundaries of the ambiguity range.
- Hypothesis: Would Y be an example of X?
- This form is similar to the Guessing tactic in the sense that it's also a closed question. The use of the word would makes the question hypothetical, which could give the respondent a sense of freedom — of not having to worry about being pinned down to specifics.
- This form also avoids the word you. Avoiding you further insulates the respondent from the query, reducing the chance of the respondent feeling attacked. Compare this to, "Would Y be an example of what you mean by X?"
- Recollection: I vaguely recall that X happened the last time Y occurred. Any connection?
- In this form, we draw a connection between the issue at hand, X, and something from the past, Y. But we confess to only a vague recollection of Y. The vagueness of the recollection leaves maneuvering room for the respondent, and thus limits the risk of appearing threatening. Vagueness is generally something to avoid, because it can seem slippery and conniving, but in connection with memory, it's more acceptable. Nearly everyone knows how vague memories can be. Of course, avoid this tactic when dealing with someone who takes pride in remembering everything.
- The vagueness also leaves space for the respondent to add to the indicated connection, which draws the respondent into providing information — in a helpful way — possibly including information that can resolve the ambiguity of the respondent's initial statement.
- Extrapolation: I'm familiar with X in the Y context, but what does it mean in Z?
- In this form, the seeker preemptively asserts some related knowledge — X in the Y context. That assertion addresses the seeker's concern about image. It also engages the respondent in a potentially interesting discussion about the meaning of extrapolating X from Y to Z.
- By taking the respondent's words seriously, the seeker limits the risk of seeming to be critical by seeking clarification.
The examples above illustrate how seekers can inquire thoughtfully and respectfully with a limited chance of appearing to be threatening. Tactics that accomplish that goal have a good chance of achieving clarification safely. But the respondent is in charge of the response. Chance is the key word. First in this series 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 Leaders Fight
- Organizations often pretend that feuds between leaders do not exist. But when the two most powerful
people in your organization go head-to-head, everyone in the organization suffers. How can you survive
a feud between people above you in the org chart?
- Devious Political Tactics: A Field Manual
- Some practitioners of workplace politics use an assortment of devious tactics to accomplish their ends.
Since most of us operate in a fairly straightforward manner, the devious among us gain unfair advantage.
Here are some of their techniques, and some suggestions for effective responses.
- On the Appearance of Impropriety
- Avoiding the appearance of impropriety is a frequent basis of business decisions. What does this mean,
what are the consequences of such avoiding, and when is it an appropriate choice?
- Not Really Part of the Team: II
- When some team members hang back, declining to show initiative, we tend to overlook the possibility
that their behavior is a response to something happening within or around the team. Too often we hold
responsible the person who's hanging back. What other explanations are possible?
- 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 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.