Anticipate Misunderstandings

I frequently hear people say that “communication is always the problem,” when organizational effectiveness is the subject.

Hmmm.

I was at a meeting once wherein the participants attempted to find a cause for an error. The short version: one party assumed the other party had completed a task the other party didn’t know anything about because a supervisor didn’t communicate the message. There were about seven different times I heard the phrase “I assumed so-and-so knew” during my one hour observation of this meeting.

So, in this case, there was a communication problem. I guess that qualifies as a data point to support the statement that “communication is always a problem.”

No?

A recent climate survey at this same organization showed there were two main areas for improvement: 1) the tendency of departments to blame other departments (and therefore absolve themselves of accountability for their actions); and 2) the inability to fully communicate across departmental boundaries without skewing the message.

The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), in taking a strategic approach to human performance, proposed that organizations address two primary challenges:

1) reduce the frequency of events by anticipating, preventing, and catching active errors at the job site

2) minimize the severity of events by identifying and eliminating latent weaknesses that hinder the effectiveness of defenses against active errors and their consequences.

Let’s look at the first one for now. I want to highlight a word in that statement that made me think twice about how “communication is always the problem.”

…anticipating…

Related to reducing the frequency of events: one (very good) communication model I firmly believe in starts with an acceptance that misunderstandings are going to occur. A truly communicative organization, therefore, consists of four elements:

1. workers who anticipate misunderstandings;
2. workers who interact;
3. workers who are flexible in their behavior; and
4. workers who understand and align with communicated strategic plans.

Going back to INPO, if we anticipate and prevent active error at the job site we can reduce human error.

Quite a few organizations I have visited or been involved with could be said to have a communication problem, and all communication problems exist because mutual understanding has not occurred.

Mutual understanding is at the heart of communication, and in order for effective communication to have occurred, the receiver must understand the message sent by the sender.

Yes? We know this.

However, if a worker goes into a situation at the job site with the expectation that misunderstandings are likely, they will already be one step ahead of the game. Why? Because they anticipated active error.

Right now, there are organizations that assume mutual understanding (e.g., “Here’s my message and I already know you get it so shut up and work”) and do not tolerate misunderstandings (e.g., “If you don’t understand me, it’s your fault and I will punish you”).

To increase effectiveness, organizations need to anticipate misunderstandings and work to ensure (not assume) mutual understanding through active listening and clear, concise, coherent, complete, and courteous speech.

If you anticipate the error, you are closer to avoiding it.