In the small European country from which I hail, residents of a particular region are known for their extreme conservatism in verbal expression - along the lines of "not shabby, we'll pass it" meaning "superb, truly excellent". Because the style is well understood by fellow citizens in other parts of the country, it is primarily a source of amusement and jokes. It is no joking matter, however, when differences in communication styles cause misunderstanding among business teams or between managers and their groups. I have previously commented about information cultures; they are, of course, accompanied by communication cultures.
Here's a scenario: A team has just worked weeks of massive overtime to pull off an "impossible" task. If bonuses aren't in the cards, the exhausted team members look for at least a rousing accolade. None arrives, and they come away feeling disappointed ... and likely uninclined to put in any such effort again. Over in the corner office, the manager meanwhile is still battling his or her challenges and, while appreciative of the team's delivery, is unaware of the extraordinary effort it took to deliver it. Two style matters may be at play: The person delivering the miracle did not go into colorful detail about how hard it was to do the work, and the manager may as yet be unpractised in the art of, and unfamiliar with the power of, praise and appreciation.
Here's another: A new team member submits a report on time with considerable pride and waits anxiously for some feedback ... unaware that the recipient's style is to take it for granted that submitted reports will be of high quality. (Others know by now that it's great news if no requests for revisions are received.) It could take some time before the new team member gets over the "what am I, chopped liver?" feeling.
And a third: A manager brings to the new job a style of communication with the troops that worked well in the previous position but is puzzling to the team members - who don't know quite what to make of it but also don't find a way to bring it up for discussion and clarification. The manager wonders why the teams don't react as expected and the teams get more perplexed as time goes on.
In such scenarios, we see good intentions but less than ideal outcomes as a result of differences in communication style or assumptions associated with communication. Just as we work on managing information objects and knowledge, so too does the matter of communication style deserve the attention of information professionals. It is always wise to pay attention to the ways in which people in an organization express themselves and to seek "local insight" how to interpret their messages. Such attention is not a large stretch from the skills we apply in the reference interview.
Given the added potential for misinterpretation coming from email and blackberry brevity (a challenge addressed in a previous post) and the lack of time to read documents properly as opposed to frantically skimming them, it's no surprise many books focus on the matter of interpersonal and enterprise communication. The well known John Gray and Deborah Tannen works come to mind; recently I stumbled on a classic by Tom Rusk entitled "The Power of Ethical Persuasion" whose case studies shed light on how every day brings opportunities for misunderstandig ... or understanding.
The takeaway for IKM professionals: Let us not asume that our messages are heard and interpreted the way we intended. Let us not react to messages without considering the background, circumstances, and communication culture. Better to check "I'd like to make sure I fully understand ..." than to carry around a big question mark. It's a good idea to make plain to close colleagues the style of how we communicate ("don't misunderstand, if I get agitated it only means I'm excited about an idea" or "if I fall silent, it only means I'm thinking, not that I am unreceptive") - just as we routinely check from time to time with clients and customers to get a sense how they understood or interpreted our latest messages.
Comments