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? rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.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:
- The Attributes of Political Opportunity: The Basics
- Opportunities come along even in tough times. But in tough times, it's especially important to distinguish
between true opportunities and high-risk adventures. Here are some of the attributes of desirable political
- A Critique of Criticism: I
- Whether we call it "criticism" or "feedback," the receiver can sometimes experience
pain, even when the giver didn't intend harm. How does this happen? What can givers of feedback do to
increase the chance that the receiver hears the giver's message without experiencing pain?
- Social Entry Strategies: II
- When we first engage with a group at work, we employ social entry strategies to make places for ourselves
to carry out our responsibilities, and to find enjoyment and fulfillment at work. Here's Part II of
a little catalog of social entry strategies.
- Unethical Coordination
- When an internal department or an external vendor is charged with managing information about a large
project, a conflict of interest can develop. That conflict presents opportunities for unethical behavior.
What's the nature of that conflict, and what ethical breaches can occur?
- Flattery and Its Perils
- Flattery is a tool of manipulation. When skillfully employed, it's difficult to distinguish from praise
or admiration. When we confuse flattery with praise, we are in peril.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming December 7: Reaching Agreements in Technological Contexts
- Reaching consensus in technological contexts presents special challenges. Problems can arise from interactions between the technological elements of the issue at hand, and the social dynamics of the group addressing that issue. Here are three examples. Available here and by RSS on December 7.
- And on December 14: Straw Man Variants
- The straw man fallacy is a famous rhetorical fallacy. Using it distorts debate and can lead groups to reach faulty conclusions. It's ad readily recognized, but it has some variants that are more difficult to spot. When unnoticed, trouble looms. Available here and by RSS on December 14.
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