Antipatterns for Time-Constrained Communication: I

Communication can go wrong in so many ways and for so many different reasons that it's a wonder we can exchange any thoughts at all. But somehow, often, we can. And we can do even better if we learn to recognize communication patterns that lead to trouble even though they seem to be useful at first. Because these patterns lead to unwelcome results, they're usually called antipatterns. [Koenig 1995]

This post and two more to come contain elements of one more tool you might add to your toolbox to help untangle miscommunications or — even better — to help prevent them. And to make this exploration manageable, I'll restrict it to time-constrained communication.

The elements of this tool consist of a collection of antipatterns. Quoting Andrew Koenig, who coined the term in the context of software engineering, "An antipattern is just like a pattern, except that instead of a solution it gives something that looks superficially like a solution, but isn't one."

We use many different patterns when we communicate. Among the simplest is what we say when we answer a phone: "Hello". Hello means, roughly, "I'm here and I'm listening; your turn." There are probably thousands of communication patterns. Some work, many don't. The ones that don't work are what we call antipatterns. This post has three examples.

In what follows, I use the name Eugene (E for Expressing) when I'm referring to the person expressing an idea, asking a question, or in some other way contributing new material to an exchange. And I use the name Rachel (R for Receiving) when I'm referring to the person Receiving Eugene's communication. Finally, I assume that both Eugene and Rachel are under time pressure.

With that prolog, here are three antipatterns that increase the risk of miscommunication.

Too big and too complicated

Eugene is busy and he knows that Rachel is too, so he tries to pack his message with his questions, insights, talking points, and all the background information he regards as relevant.

As a Dealing with any subject with too
little time is unlikely to produce
the outcome we wantresult, what Eugene is trying to express is too big, too complicated, or requires too much time compared to the time available. If Rachel and Eugene push ahead anyway, confusion and miscommunication are the probable results.

Dealing with any subject with too little time is unlikely to produce the outcome they want. If Eugene's thoughts need more time, the two partners would do well to solve that problem first, and then address the subject of their conversation. If they can't expand the time available, exchanging messages in more compact packets is the best available alternative.

Mismatched knowledge stacks

A person's knowledge stack is the partially ordered collection of terms, experiences, and concepts that are needed to understand a message. For example, when someone asks for your email address, you retrieve it from your knowledge stack and relay it to the requestor. Or when you need to know the local time of day for someone you're planning to engage by phone, you reach into your knowledge stack for that answer or perhaps how to find that answer. Less trivial examples include the meanings of acronyms, or the current assessment of the capabilities of a market rival.

When we fail to verify that participants in an exchange have compatible knowledge stacks, they might get deep into the exchange before they realize that they aren't using words or concepts in the same way. Then they have to retreat and reconstruct the conversation after they've verified that they're using terms compatibly. And they need to check that everyone's stack is free of gaps and omissions.

One way to limit the occurrence of this antipattern is to publish and maintain a "terminology and concept glossary."

Inappropriate focus: the McNamara Fallacy

The McNamara Fallacy is the discredited idea that one can manage the missions of complex organizations by deriving guidance solely from numeric measurements of inputs and outputs. If these "metrics" are correctly chosen, so says the Fallacy, we can make good decisions based only on these metrics. [Baskin 2014] [Muller 2019] In this way, the Fallacy causes us to confuse Objectivity with Importance. More

An antipattern in itself, the McNamara Fallacy appears in many contexts beyond communications. In the communications context, the McNamara Fallacy causes the exchange participants to focus attention on the values of one or a few metrics, instead of the process or entity that the metrics supposedly represent.

For example, if a team is concerned that attendance at meetings is 85% instead of the goal value of 95%, the conversation might focus on percentage overall attendance instead of the fact that on average, all of the "right people" for any given meeting have been attending with regularity.

By misleading the team with objective-sounding data, the Fallacy can cause a team to focus on related but inessential material instead of material that's central to the team's mission.

Last words

These three causes of miscommunication under time pressure are generic in the sense that they don't depend on message content. Next time I'll examine some patterns that lead to miscommunications in ways that do depend on message content.   Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!

Footnotes

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:

Some Truths About Lies: I

However ethical you might be, you can't control the ethics of others. Can you tell when someone knowingly tries to mislead you? Here's Part I of a catalog of techniques misleaders use.

See No Evil

When teams share information among themselves, they have their best opportunity to reach peak performance. And when some information is withheld within an elite group, the team faces unique risks.

Exasperation Generators: Opaque Metaphors

Most people don't mind going to meetings. They don't even mind coming back from them. It's being in meetings that can be so exasperating. What can we do about this?

Reframing Revision Resentment: II

When we're required to revise something previously produced — prose, designs, software, whatever, we sometimes experience frustration with those requiring the revisions. Here are some alternative perspectives that can be helpful.

Unintended Condescension: II

Intentionally making condescending remarks is something most of us do only when we lose control. But anyone at any time can inadvertently make a remark that someone else experiences as condescending. We explored two patterns to avoid last time. Here are two more.

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