Understanding and Being Understood
6 January 2009
Read by 1894 persons
Text: Do you sometimes feel that your colleagues don't understand what you're saying? Then know that you are absolutely not alone. We conducted a quick survey and came to a surprising conclusion. When you observe a discussion between a manager and their colleagues and then ask them what conclusions were drawn, in more than 80% of cases you will get contradictory opinions about the conversation.
And this is a source of frustration, both for the manager and their colleagues. But where does the fact that no one understood each other come from? What are the causes? We discovered 3 important things:
1. The manager spends all their attention and energy making what he/she wants to explain as clear as possible. But no attention is paid to how others understand the message.
2. The manager often uses ambiguous terms that belong to management jargon, which must be understood by their colleagues.
3. Each party uses a different interpretative framework, a different logic.
Let's try to explain this
We spend, with the best intentions, an incredible amount of energy on the "packaging". The way we explain something. And that honors us. But this does indeed pose a problem for others. Really? Or does it only show a concern about how others see us, experience us, and judge us? Ultimately, we must pay more attention to others. How do we see others? How to "package" our message in a way that they will understand it in the same way that we intended to express it?
It's not about giving an explanation for ourselves for whom the subject is clear, but about giving an explanation so that others can understand it as best as possible. What is understandable to us (our work jargon, acronyms, abbreviations, etc.) is not necessarily so for others.
Ambiguous terms
Every company speaks its own language. Moreover, each department, each division has (up to a certain level) its own language. Within the group, people (often) have the same interpretative framework and the same way of understanding the terms of their work jargon.
Once outside this circle, we often have a tendency to use the same terms. And this can lead to two major obstacles during a conversation:
1. People interpret terms differently, they give them different meanings.
For example, a "sales budget" means for some "achieving their turnover" and for others "a budget that can be spent to achieve a turnover". To understand the particular notions of specific jargon, you need the framework. It is therefore always necessary to state the framework and explain the nuances. Also use enough control questions to check if you are talking about the same thing.
2. We often take for granted that others know the same vocabulary as us by using it as we do. Nothing could be further from the truth...Notions such as TQM, Six Sigma, balanced scorecards, etc., are common terms for managers, but they will only mean something (a business echo) for operational managers. But very few will admit their lack of knowledge. The consequence of this is that you talk about relatively rare notions that are unknown to others. For example, a particular process is designated by one word in one printing company and by another word in another printing company. What happens then if an employee suddenly changes employers and is confronted with this notion?
Different logic
Logic is logic! It's logical. Yes and no! Even in rational logic, premises play an important role. In emotional logic, it becomes even more complex. Everyone has their own "background" and experience. We are all unique. And that means we all have our own unique way of interpreting.
What is of implacable logic for some, can be completely illogical for others. Only if you adapt your message to the interpretative framework of others, will you be able to benefit from a greater understanding.
Posted on May 22, 2008
references.be
And this is a source of frustration, both for the manager and their colleagues. But where does the fact that no one understood each other come from? What are the causes? We discovered 3 important things:
1. The manager spends all their attention and energy making what he/she wants to explain as clear as possible. But no attention is paid to how others understand the message.
2. The manager often uses ambiguous terms that belong to management jargon, which must be understood by their colleagues.
3. Each party uses a different interpretative framework, a different logic.
Let's try to explain this
We spend, with the best intentions, an incredible amount of energy on the "packaging". The way we explain something. And that honors us. But this does indeed pose a problem for others. Really? Or does it only show a concern about how others see us, experience us, and judge us? Ultimately, we must pay more attention to others. How do we see others? How to "package" our message in a way that they will understand it in the same way that we intended to express it?
It's not about giving an explanation for ourselves for whom the subject is clear, but about giving an explanation so that others can understand it as best as possible. What is understandable to us (our work jargon, acronyms, abbreviations, etc.) is not necessarily so for others.
Ambiguous terms
Every company speaks its own language. Moreover, each department, each division has (up to a certain level) its own language. Within the group, people (often) have the same interpretative framework and the same way of understanding the terms of their work jargon.
Once outside this circle, we often have a tendency to use the same terms. And this can lead to two major obstacles during a conversation:
1. People interpret terms differently, they give them different meanings.
For example, a "sales budget" means for some "achieving their turnover" and for others "a budget that can be spent to achieve a turnover". To understand the particular notions of specific jargon, you need the framework. It is therefore always necessary to state the framework and explain the nuances. Also use enough control questions to check if you are talking about the same thing.
2. We often take for granted that others know the same vocabulary as us by using it as we do. Nothing could be further from the truth...Notions such as TQM, Six Sigma, balanced scorecards, etc., are common terms for managers, but they will only mean something (a business echo) for operational managers. But very few will admit their lack of knowledge. The consequence of this is that you talk about relatively rare notions that are unknown to others. For example, a particular process is designated by one word in one printing company and by another word in another printing company. What happens then if an employee suddenly changes employers and is confronted with this notion?
Different logic
Logic is logic! It's logical. Yes and no! Even in rational logic, premises play an important role. In emotional logic, it becomes even more complex. Everyone has their own "background" and experience. We are all unique. And that means we all have our own unique way of interpreting.
What is of implacable logic for some, can be completely illogical for others. Only if you adapt your message to the interpretative framework of others, will you be able to benefit from a greater understanding.
Posted on May 22, 2008
references.be
