Antipatterns for Time-Constrained Communication: III

In Part I of this exploration, I described three communication antipatterns that can arise independent of what we intend to communicate. In Part II I described antipatterns that arise, in part, because of the attributes of what we're communicating. In this last Part III, I focus on three kinds of confusions that arise from contextual factors.

As in the previous posts in this series, 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.

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

Poor framing

The frame of a message includes the specific context required to understand it. The specific context is the top layer of the knowledge stack. It includes specific vocabulary, acronyms, historic references, and the settings in which components must operate. Because framing terminology that also serves other purposes can create ambiguity, the frame includes information needed to resolve those ambiguities.

Rachel (a recipient) If time constraints are tight,
the urge to find communications
shortcuts can be overwhelmingcan understand only well-framed messages. A poorly framed message almost certainly leads to miscommunication.

Examples are among the most powerful tools for mitigating the risk of poor framing. If Eugene (the person Expressing the message content) doesn't include examples, Rachel would do well to ask for them, or perhaps to formulate one herself and ask Eugene to confirm that it's a relevant example.

Similarity to previous problems

If time constraints are tight, the urge to find communications shortcuts can be overwhelming. One very appealing shortcut involves viewing the current problem as another instance of a previously solved problem. That approach can work well at times, because it saves some of the effort associated with defining the problem and then finding a solution.

But in our haste we sometimes overlook important distinctions between the current problem and the problem previously solved. For example, when Eugene has taken this shortcut, and Rachel or others haven't, the opportunities for miscommunication are numerous. Worse, recognizing the miscommunications can be difficult when the parties are talking about different problems using similar vocabularies.

At some point when this has occurred, someone might say, "Wait, are we talking about the same thing?" If you feel the urge to ask such a question, you could be caught in this kind of trap.

Closely held information

If one of the parties to the exchange, let's say Eugene, has access to closely held information, special kinds of miscommunications can occur. Suppose that Eugene knows about Secret 1, but Rachel doesn't. And suppose that Secret 1 is relevant to their exchange. We can easily imagine scenarios in which Eugene — knowingly or unknowingly — allows Rachel to exit the conversation with a significant misconception. But there's nothing special about these roles — we can swap roles and the problem could still arise.

Eugene's failure (or choice) to inform Rachel that she is misinterpreting some part of their exchange might not reflect badly on Eugene. For example, he might be constrained by law or by role not to reveal anything about Secret 1, including its very existence.

Both Eugene and Rachel might simultaneously possess closely held information that they cannot reveal to the other. Navigating in environments in which these scenarios are common can be challenging.

Last words

These three posts have explored miscommunications that arise in three categories: causes independent of content, causes that depend on content, and causes that depend on contextual factors. Other frameworks are possible, of course. To search for causes of miscommunication in your context, begin by collecting examples. If you can devise a framework that covers a significant share of your examples, you can use that framework to anticipate other communication antipatterns. Anticipation is among the first steps toward prevention.   First 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!

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:

The Passion-Professionalism Paradox

Changing the direction of a group or a company requires passion and professionalism, two attributes often in tension. Here's one possible way to resolve that tension.

Four Overlooked Email Risks: I

Working together to resolve issues or make decisions in email is fraught with risk. Most discussions of these risks emphasize using etiquette to manage emotional content. But email has other limitations, less-often discussed, that make managing email exchanges very difficult.

Four Overlooked Email Risks: II

Email exchanges are notorious for exposing groups to battles that would never occur in face-to-face conversation. But email has other limitations, less-often discussed, that make managing dialog very difficult. Here's Part II of an exploration of some of those risks.

Chronic Peer Interrupters: III

People who habitually interrupt others in meetings must be fairly common, because I'm often asked about what to do about them. And you can find lots of tips on the Web, too. Some tips work well, some generally don't. Here are my thoughts about four more.

On Miscommunication

Some sources of confusion in communications are difficult to detect. Because they escape our notice, they are also difficult to avoid. One example: words that mean different things in different contexts. Another: multiple negations involving prefixes.

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming July 3: Additive bias…or Not: II

Additive bias is a cognitive bias that many believe contributes to bloat of commercial products. When we change products to make them more capable, additive bias might not play a role, because economic considerations sometimes favor additive approaches. Available here and by RSS on July 3.

And on July 10: On Delegating Accountability: I

As the saying goes, "You can't delegate your own accountability." Despite wide knowledge of this aphorism, people try it from time to time, especially when overcome by the temptation of a high-risk decision. What can you delegate, and how can you do it? Available here and by RSS on July 10.

Coaching services

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