Mastering Messaging for Pandemics: II

In Part I of this exploration, I noted several practices for citing dates and times that reduce the probability of confusion. But our messages consist of much more than dates and times. Patterns of language that cause little trouble when spoken can be disastrous in messages, because the feedback loop for the messaging context is so much longer than is the feedback loop for spoken communication. In messaging, the sender might not realize that something has gone amiss until enough time has passed for real trouble to occur.

Here are four examples of patterns that can cause trouble in messaging.

"Can't," "cannot," and "couldn't"

The words can't, cannot, couldn't, and friends, fail to distinguish between willingness, ability, and authority. For example, when Eric was asked how long ago his team lead had told him of the change in requirements, he responded, "I really couldn't say." Was he unwilling? Unable? Not allowed?

When expressing the idea that compliance with a request isn't forthcoming, explaining why not is important. An inability to comply is different from an unwillingness to comply, and both inability and unwillingness differ from lacking the authority to comply. In Eric's case, his response doesn't tell us whether he doesn't know, or he knows but doesn't want to say, or he knows or doesn't know, but in either case, he isn't permitted to say.

In messages, using either can't, cannot, or equivalent terms to express the idea that compliance isn't forthcoming leaves the recipient free to choose an interpretation. And the recipient's choice might lead to trouble for sender, recipient, or both.

Pronouns

Pronouns are words such as it, that, this, those, them, they, him, her, she, he, his, hers, theirs, and their. A pronoun is a word that substitutes for a noun or noun phrase. It refers to a noun or noun phrase previously mentioned in the discourse in which it (the pronoun) appears. The noun or noun phrase to which the pronoun refers is called the referent.

Pronouns Troubles happen in messaging because
feedback loop for the messaging context
is so much longer than is the feedback
loop for spoken communicationcan create problems when their referents are ambiguous or undefined. To remove the ambiguity, simply replace the pronoun with its referent, or leave it in place and follow the pronoun with the referent in parentheses. That's what I did in the previous paragraph where I inserted "(the pronoun)" following it.

A very common source of pronoun ambiguity arises when the conversation topic includes multiple people of the same gender. In that situation, he or she might refer to more than one individual, and confusion can result. When the topic includes multiple people of the same gender, it's safer to use names than pronouns.

Name ambiguity

As noted above, because pronouns can be sources of ambiguity, we must sometimes use personal names to avoid ambiguity when referring to people. But what if two people on the same team, or in the same conversation, share the same familiar name? Or worse, what if they share the same surname as well? Avoiding ambiguity can then become a bit tricky.

Some resort to numbering people: Jennifer Two, or Ali One. Not a good idea. Confusion results when people forget which Jennifer is Jennifer One and which Jennifer is Jennifer Two. And in some cultures, being a One is subjectively regarded as conferring higher status than being a Two. Status differences, especially unearned status differences, can be trouble.

A lower-risk approach is to attach a neutral modifier to the person's familiar name. Geography is usually safe. Examples: "Jennifer in Singapore," or "Ali in New York."

Choose your modifiers carefully. For example, it's dangerous to identify one Ali as the Smart Ali, because that would imply that the other Ali isn't smart.

Homophonic confusions

A homophone is a word that's pronounced the same way as another word, but differs in meaning or (possibly) spelling. For example, in U.S. English, pear/pair/pare are homophones of each other, as are you're/your and rain/rein/reign. A homophonic confusion happens when we type one homophone, but we meant to type another. An example: "We can't bare any shortcomings in our performance."

Text messaging and email messaging are troublesome enough without homophonic confusions. And we can't rely on spell checkers to catch them, because these confusions are usually spelled correctly.

To reduce the incidence of homophonic confusions, we must proofread our messages before sending them. And since these confusions are more likely to occur when we're hurrying, proofreading is the one thing we'd rather not do. So when you're in a hurry, remember: this is exactly the time when proofreading is most important.

The patterns above are four of the fairly common sources of confusion in messaging. There are dozens more. Examples are unusual words, acronyms, initialisms, weirdly complex sentences, and unnoticed but disastrous autocorrect fails. When you notice a confusing pattern not described here, add it to your collection. Use that collection to help you compose messages that are less likely to be sources of trouble.   First 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:

You and I

In tense discussions, the language we use often contributes to the tension. If we can transform the statements we make about each other into statements about ourselves, we can eliminate an important source of tension and stress.

When You Aren't Supposed to Say: I

Most of us have information that's "company confidential," or possibly even more sensitive than that. When we encounter individuals who try to extract that information, we're better able to protect it if we know their techniques.

Definitions of Insanity

When leaders try to motivate organizational change, they often resort to clever sloganeering. One of the most commonly used slogans is a definition of insanity. Unfortunately, that definition doesn't pass the sanity test.

Communication Templates: I

Some communication patterns are so widely used that nearly everyone in a given cultural group knows them. These templates demand certain prescribed responses, and societal norms enforce them. In themselves, they're harmless, but there are risks.

How to Listen to Someone Who's Dead Wrong

Sometimes we must listen attentively to someone with whom we strongly disagree. The urge to interrupt can be overpowering. How can we maintain enough self-control to really listen?

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming May 14: Working with the Overconfident

A cognitive bias known as the Overconfidence Effect causes us to overestimate the reliability of our judgments. Decisions we make based on those judgments are therefore suspect. But there are steps we can take to make our confidence levels more realistic, and thus make our decisions more reliable. Available here and by RSS on May 14.

And on May 21: Mismanaging Project Managers

Most organizations hold project managers accountable for project performance. But they don't grant those project managers control of needed resources. Nor do they hold project sponsors or other senior managers accountable for the consequences of their actions when they interfere with project work. Here's a catalog of behaviors worth looking at. Available here and by RSS on May 21.

Coaching services

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