Somehow, it seems as if some words meant to clarify only add confusion.

“Don’t you understand this?” by itself is a horror because it is a negative question but the speaker assumes all readers are very well aware of what is meant by ‘this‘. Below some other examples in the tradition I am building of not telling others what to do, but only showing what happens if they do not.

The first component in an explanation is the person speaking. A little while ago, for fun I divided ‘the world’ into speakers and listeners, whereby speakers are masters in words, they are the ones that can motivate others, are managers, sales people. They are crucial in getting things done by others. Listeners on the other hand spend their time doing things rather than talking about it. And of course, in every person there is a some of each, in some people there is a lot of one and a little of the other…

However, for speakers there is something to be said for allowing the other party to respond (more than just filling up the time the speaker needs to gasp for air). As an example, a sample out of a purely hypothetical conversation via mobile phones between representatives of both species, where ‘…’ indicates a person has been cut off by the other:

Speaker: “bla, bla”

Listener: “Sorry, but …..”

Speaker: “Do you understand this?”

Listener: “No, I ……”

Speaker: “But isn’t my explanation clear?

Listener: “No, ….”

Speaker: “But I spent all this time explaining …………”

Listener: “Sorry, but there was a train passing by, so I could not properly hear your first sentence. Could you repeat it please?”

A second component in the conversation is the sentence structure used. The better one party knows the other, the shorter, more staccato, interaction can be. When a team of movers is lifting a heavy piano, a simple “1,2,3!” is sufficient to fully coordinate their exertion of physical power. In a relationship a mere facial expression can be sufficient for the partner to change behavior. Long-time colleagues do not even ask any more whether you have milk in your coffee, they know (to what extent that also happens in a partner relationship does give insight into the nature of that relationship, I would say).

Same thing when people make notes for themselves: if the intended party is no one but yourself, your handwriting generally will be less legible. The same thing happens to status reports, if it is just used inside a closely knitted group, mere single words could be sufficient to get the message across, but poor Program Manager who does not deal with the subject every day and has to understand these solitary words!

So, depending upon the (relationship and experience with the) receiver, the communication needs to be longer and completer or can be shorter with more abbreviations.

On top of both, a third element in conversations is the use of specific words. In the two earlier ones, parties and sentence structure, any unclarities usually are found out in the conversation itself, however, some words can make parties think they have agreement, to find out that this is not the case afterwards. These words set the stage for utter disorientation because they carry little ‘time bombs’ inside. Detonation is occurring when clarification is created.

The least hurtful are the vague descriptions ‘some transactions’ or ‘previous months’, they are non-specific but a reader should see immediately the ambiguity in the terms. All of these landmines can be de-activated by one single question: “Which?”.

Much more damage is done by statements where both parties think they have a common understanding, but where they err. The classic “So we agree on this.” shows the way to the category of the ‘words with the hand grenades’: this, that, these and those. All of these words can help in making communication making more specific when used in front of a noun, like ‘this contract’. However, when used without the noun, they get ‘loaded by reference’, which means loaded with inspecifics and thus with potential unclarity and misunderstanding. It is the obligation of a writer/sender to avoid these kind of statements, it is the obligation of the reader/receiver to ask for clarification.

On this note, I sent out a change of address to postNL, the provider of my P.O. Box in Holland. This change of address indicated both my original Dutch home address, the relevant Dutch P.O. Box and my new German address. Promptly, I received a return question asking me whether I wanted to keep “the Dutch address I used in my mail” as a correspondence address after my move. I could not help but asking for clarification.

Just the same, such an unclear statement can also be used to ‘defuse’ a situation. When both parties agree to disagree but do not want to communicate the latter, a vague reference can be inserted so that a common declaration at the end of a meeting can be issued. This (!) prevents them from having to say ‘both parties disagree vehemently and both are too exhausted to even listen to the arguments of the opposite side any more’.

It is to the communicator to choose when to apply which methodology.

(Originally posted April 27, 2013)