The 3 Tools of Effective Communicators
I was in communications during my time in the Marine Corps. It is kind of odd now when I look back on it because the Marine Corps, much like most large organizations, doesn’t do ‘communication’ well, at least not in the form of everyday business.
However, when it comes to combat operations, the military communicates at a higher level, at least over the radio that is. Military combat radio communications have what I would call ‘good bones’. Meaning that although the product isn’t always perfect, it is reliable because the skeleton is sound.
Let me give you an example of what I mean. When communicating over the radio there is an emphasis on the radio operator awareness that the speaker is more likely to be misunderstood than understood.
All things being equal when bombs are going off, mortar shells are landing, tanks are rattling by firing projectiles, and fighter jets are strafing thousands of high caliber rounds down like rain communication, as you can imagine, gets a bit tricky. The experience described as the Fog of War, where our senses get flooded to the point of disorientation, is real and unavoidable.
With this in mind, there are some basic rules they teach you in comm school. The most commonly known system is the phonetic alphabet. But there are other important rules to speak by. For instance, a seasoned radio communicator would never ask someone to repeat what they said if he or she didn’t understand them. NEVER. Why? Well, because the first rule of all good communication is to avoid using words with more than one meaning when there is a high chance for misunderstanding.
For English speakers, this is pretty much the equivalent of parting the Red Sea or turning water into wine; nevertheless, it's crucial. So when calling for another round of artillery fire or airstrikes, time is of the essence. The quick and easy way to send that message to the person(s) on the trigger is to say “repeat”, which means doing that same thing again. Fire the same volume of rounds in the same way on the same target.
Knowing that to be true, asking someone to “repeat” themselves because I didn’t understand them now becomes a mistake that could cost real lives. Instead, we were taught to use phrases such as “Say again”, “Say Again Last”, or “Say Again All".” Same idea but with precise language.
I bet most of us can think of our experiences at work, especially meetings, that sound a lot like this hilarious comedic routine from Abbott & Costello about the names of baseball players.
Which makes me wonder, “If communication is known to be both difficult and important, why don’t we treat it with more care?”
The shortlist of common reasons aka excuses I hear are:
Its too hard
Takes too long
Not my problem
Of course ‘too hard’ is just a lazy excuse. ‘Takes too long’ has been disproven by combat operations. But the ‘Not my problem’ excuse is insightful.
Communication isn’t the act of sending a message. Communication is the act of sending a message to a specific audience and then ensuring the message was received and understood.
There are real-life risks to poor communication in our workplaces even if they don’t look quite as extreme as combat operations.
Poor communication leads to lost opportunities for companies and people. Poor communication costs more than lost revenue, profit, salary, and benefits.
The challenge we face every day is not just the visible consequences of poor communication but the unintended ones as well. Unintended consequences are the main driver of the “Fog of Life.” The “Fog of Life” can be just as distracting and disorienting to us as the “Fog of War”, because home always comes to work, and work always comes home in one way or another.
So is the problem a lack of accountability, laziness, and apathy? Is the problem that we just assume too much?
NO!
Assumptions can be problematic but they are not the problem. Assumptions though not always wise, are common and not entirely unhealthy depending on the context. If I see a car barreling toward me as I walk down the sidewalk, assuming it will hit me and jumping out of the way is not a bad response.
It’s true the phrase, “I assumed they knew what I meant,” is the phrase shared by almost every failed leadership endeavor. But the dangerous part of that phrase isn’t the assumption; it’s the words “they knew what I meant.” How can I expect the receiver to know what I mean if I don’t understand clearly enough to say it?
Did you know that some say there are as many as 6,000 homonyms in the English language? In case your English language trivia knowledge is a bit rusty, let me help. Homonyms are words that are spelled and sound the same but have different meanings like the word book. A book is something to read, and it’s also the act of making a reservation.
As this writer humorously points out, when thinking about the complexity of the English language, the default presumption that another person will accurately understand my communication demonstrates ignorance on my part, not ineptitude on the part of someone else.
When I am communicating with someone, having a clear understandable message is my responsibility, not the receivers.
Why do we feel irritated or annoyed when others misunderstand us?
Why do we feel persecuted when others are upset we misunderstood them?
Is the misunderstanding because they’re up to no good or is it because they’re up to know good?
When our communication follows the premise of that Abbott and Costello routine it’s no wonder we find ourselves shouting out, “I don’t know!” Only to hear someone random person respond, “Third base!”
So how can speakers of a language as confusing and convoluted as English communicate clearly? Is it a lost cause?
No way! There are 3 basic tools great communicators keep in their communication toolbox. These tools are like the hammer, screwdriver, and pliers of the communication toolkit, you have to have them with you at all times.
Context
Intent
Curiosity
The first tool is CONTEXT.
If most communication is sharing something unknown, misunderstood, or completely new, then context is key. How did we get this information? What informed the change? What is the source of our information? How does it align with what we already know? What are the priorities of the instructions? How will we manage competing priorities?
The importance of CONTEXT is why the best communicators are, by default, storytellers. The story is an excellent medium for context, BUT there is an even a better one (Hint: Keep Reading).
The second tool is INTENT.
In the old Abbot and Costello bit, the comedic genius of the bit was not just using the words “who, what, and why”. That wouldn’t have been as humorous for as long. They stretched the bit out with a small twist of genius. If you listen again you notice Bud Abbott uses the contextually wrong intonation when he says the names. When he says, “Who,” with the rising intonation we are accustomed to hearing in a question to make a statement, the confusion makes the bit even funnier.
Great communicators clarify INTENT because they realize if they don’t add the intent, the receiver will add their own. People don’t do things without a purpose. If we assume the purpose is “because I said so” or “because it is their job” we are allowing them to interpret the message by applying the intent or purpose of their choosing. We then experience frustration when the results of their work doesn’t match our intent.
Both CONTEXT and INTENT are lenses shaping how we interpret the world.
When the speakers context and intent are left unspoken, they message is subject to the the context and intent of the receiver.
The third tool is CURIOSITY
Curiosity is a tool of great communicators because it is the most powerful medium for context and intent. Great communicators have honed the skill of crafting their message in a package uniquely designed for their audience. Curiosity is what enables those communicators to craft a message with clear details, appropriate context, and identifiable intent.
Curiosity is a great tool because it creates the non-hostile space for clear communication and reflective follow-up.
Reflective follow-up* rejects the assumption that poor communication is the fault of the listener and acknowledges the curse of knowledge**.
When we incorporate context, intent, and curiosity into our communication a couple of things will naturally take place.
You’ll eventually learn to include context and intent without even thinking about it.
Your team will become more active listeners, asking for context and intent when it’s missing.
Curiosity will spread and communication hostilities will dissipate.
So much of our communication today feels hostile because it is hostile.
The hostilities are born out of the practice of using verbal preemptive strikes against the receivers to defend our communication impotence. These cultural behaviors embolden actions disproportional in nature, escalating in effect, and destructive on impact. Becoming effective communicators begins with adding context, intent, and curiosity to our skillset and its significant work.
I say begins, because that phrase we grew up saying to each other on the playground as kids about sticks and stones, well, we had it all wrong.
Sticks and stones may break our bones but it’s the words, in the end, that destroy us, especially the ones left out and misunderstood.
*Examples of Reflective Follow-Up:
“Based on what I just said, what do are you going to do first?”
“What is the most important thing you just heard me say?”
“Based on what I just said, what kind of questions came to your mind?”
“What did you hear me say I want or need you to do?”
