I Don't Understand: II

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 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.

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:

Devious Political Tactics: Divide and Conquer, Part II

While most leaders try to achieve organizational unity, some do use divisive tactics to maintain control, or to elevate performance by fostering competition. Here's Part II of a series exploring the risks of these tactics.

Mitigating Risk Resistance Risk

Project managers are responsible for managing risks, but they're often stymied by insufficient resources. Here's a proposal for making risk management more effective at an organizational scale.

Power, Authority, and Influence: A Systems View

Power, Authority, and Influence are often understood as personal attributes. To fully grasp how they function in organizations, we must adopt a systems view.

Devious Political Tactics: Mis- and Disinformation

Practitioners of workplace politics intent on gaining unfair advantage sometimes use misinformation, disinformation, and other information-related tactics. Here's a short catalog of techniques to watch for.

Time to Go to Plan B

We had a plan, and it was a good one. Plan A actually seemed to work for a while, but then troubles began. And now things look very bleak. We have a Plan B, but people don't want to go to it. Why not?

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming March 29: Time Slot Recycling: The Risks

When we can't begin a meeting because some people haven't arrived, we sometimes cancel the meeting and hold a different one, with the people who are in attendance. It might seem like a good way to avoid wasting time, but there are risks. Available here and by RSS on March 29.

And on April 5: The Fallacy of Division

Errors of reasoning are pervasive in everyday thought in most organizations. One of the more common errors is called the Fallacy of Division, in which we assume that attributes of a class apply to all members of that class. It leads to ridiculous results. Available here and by RSS on April 5.

Coaching services

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