Mastering Messaging for Pandemics: I

Most of us spend a significant part of our days composing messages in text or email, or reading messages others have sent us. But during pandemics — like the COVID-19 pandemic — in which congregating in groups risks spreading disease, we're forced to work from home, or we work on staggered schedules. We can't meet in person, and meeting virtually imposes such burdensome limitations on communication that messaging in text or email becomes even more important than it normally is.

Of the time we spend composing or reading messages, a surprisingly large fraction is wasted, because the messages we send or receive are ambiguous, misinterpreted, or too muddled to fathom. Messages that deliver the meaning we intend must be clear, focused, unambiguous, and easily understood. Composing such messages with regularity requires a level of mastery beyond what most of us have attained.

Mishaps can be costly. As message receivers, when we misinterpret messages we've received, we make mistakes. We take steps in the wrong direction and then we must later undo what we've done. As message composers, when we receive requests for clarification, we must rephrase and re-send our messages, hoping not to add fuel to the already-burning fire of confusion. If we do manage eventually to clarify our communications, the delays can be expensive, sometimes unacceptably so.

Fortunately, Messages that deliver the
meaning we intend must be
clear, focused, unambiguous,
and easily understoodthe steps required to reduce the frequency of these mishaps are few, and they're relatively easily applied. The hard part is remembering to take those steps. I've compiled a few of the more important practices in this post and the next. Let's begin with dates and times.

Use a standard time zone to cite times

Citing times has long been problematic for teams dispersed across multiple time zones. But because of the pandemic, some teams that were co-located before the pandemic are now geographically dispersed. The reasons for this vary.

For example, before the pandemic some team members achieved co-located status all week by traveling great distances to home and back on weekends. But since work-from-home became the norm, they no longer make the trip. And many of them live in time zones different from the one to which they formerly commuted. Another example: some new hires who would normally have commuted weekly, or who would have relocated for their new jobs, are now hired on remotely. And some team members just decided for the duration of work-from-home to go somewhere they'd rather be. The result is that some formerly co-located teams are now dispersed across multiple time zones. Such teams might not regard themselves as time-zone-dispersed, but they definitely are.

These teams are now noticing what geographically dispersed teams already knew too well. When the sender and recipient of a message are in different time zones, confusion happens when someone cites a time without specifying the time zone. Confusion can also happen when team members cite times in different time zones, compelling each other to make appropriate conversions — correctly.

Defining a "team time zone" and citing all times in that time zone does help, but I've found that it's still necessary to include the time zone whenever citing a time. Teams of people in multiple time zones will likely run into time confusion unless they adopt a standard time zone for citing times in messages, and then reference the standard time zone when citing times.

Cite times with time and time zone name only

Some message senders do cite times with a reference to the time zone, but they reference the time zone incorrectly. The issue is the accurate citation of Daylight Saving Time (also known as Summer Time). As an example of this error, the zone known as Eastern Time in North America is sometimes cited as EST when Daylight Saving Time is actually in effect. This can be confusing.

To avoid this confusion, cite the time zone by its name only, omitting the reference to Standard time or Daylight Saving Time. For example, to cite a time in the Eastern Time zone in North America, cite it as "ET", "Eastern Time", or just "Eastern".

Even better: cite all times in Zulu (see below).

Use Zulu time as a team standard time

For collaborations that include many time zones, use Zulu (officially "UTC") as the standard time. As a standard time zone for a team, Zulu, which is the successor to GMT, has multiple advantages. Zulu doesn't have a Daylight Saving Time switchover, which eliminates that source of confusion. For organizations that have many teams with multiple time zones, a proliferation of different team standard times can create confusion in the minds of team members who belong to two or more teams. An organization-wide use of Zulu for team standard time addresses these issues and more.

Zulu time apps in wondrous variety are available in your app store.

Use absolute days and dates

A relative day or date is a term such as "tomorrow", "yesterday," "today," "last week," "next week" and so on. An absolute day or date is a term such as "Thursday" or better, "Thursday, June 2," or "next Thursday, June 2."

Relative days or dates do work well in conversation. They also work well in messaging, but only when the recipient reads the message on the same day as the sender sent it. That's why relative days or dates don't age well. Consider reviewing a message that's more than a day old. When the reader encounters a relative date, such as "yesterday," the reader must first ascertain when the sender sent the message, and then determine what the meaning of the relative day or date might be. That operation might require the use of a calendar.

As a sender, you can save readers trouble — and eliminate a potential source of error — by using absolute days or dates whenever you need to specify a day or date. And if you do cite a day or date, cite it with respect to the team standard time zone (see above).

In my next post I'll explore other more varied sources of confusion and ambiguity.   Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Are you so buried in email that you don't even have time to delete your spam? Do you miss important messages? So many of the problems we have with email are actually within our power to solve, if we just realize the consequences of our own actions. Read 101 Tips for Writing and Managing Email to learn how to make peace with your inbox. Order Now!

And if you have organizational responsibility, you can help transform the culture to make more effective use of email. You can reduce volume while you make content more valuable. You can discourage email flame wars and that blizzard of useless if well-intended messages from colleagues and subordinates. Read Where There's Smoke There's Email to learn how to make email more productive at the organizational scale — and less dangerous. Order Now!

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 Effective Communication at Work:

Exasperation Generators: Irrelevant Detail

When people relate stories at work, what seems important to one person can feel irrelevant to someone else. Being subjected to one irrelevant detail after another can be as exasperating as being told repeatedly to get to the point. How can we find a balance?

That Was a Yes-or-No Question: I

In tense situations, one person might question another. As the respondent replies, the questioner interjects, "That was a yes-or-no question." The intent is to trap the respondent. How does this work, and how can the respondent escape the trap?

Chronic Peer Interrupters: II

People use a variety of tactics when they're interrupted while making contributions in meetings. Some tactics work well, while others carry risks of their own. Here's Part II of a little survey of those tactics.

The Risks of Rehearsals

Rehearsing a conversation can be constructive. But when we're anxious about it, we can imagine how it would unfold in ways that bias our perceptions. We risk deluding ourselves about possible outcomes, and we might even experience stress unnecessarily.

Should I Write or Should I Call?

After we recognize the need to contact a colleague or colleagues to work out a way to move forward, we next must decide how to make contact. Phone? Videoconference? Text message? There are some simple criteria that can help with such decisions.

See also Effective Communication at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming September 24: Time Is Not a Resource

In the project management community, it's often said that time is the most precious resource. Although time is indeed precious, to regard it as a resource — like finance, equipment, or people — can be a dangerous mistake. Time is not a resource. Available here and by RSS on September 24.

And on 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.

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