"Let me be perfectly clear ... "
How often have we heard this sentence? It is usually the lead in to an implicit or explicit threat of a consequence of some action on non-action. The question is: What are we trying to do the other times, when we are not using the preamble of "let me be perfectly clear".. are we trying to be unclear .. huh? what gives?
Welcome to chapter 15 of the CommFlow System. Thank you for continuing to read. Note: At this point you should have identified your communication mentor or advisor. (If you don't know what I am speaking of, you have probably not read the introductory chapters and chapters 1 - 14. I recommend to read these first to obtain the context of chapter 15)
We have now laid a foundation for excellence in communication in that we are trying to observe the behavior and cultural aspects of our communication partners and target audience (Community). We are also trying to establish an intention for each communication flow based on the rule that the meaning of each communication is embedded in the result we achieve (Intent). In addition, we also are beginning to use the third key to Understanding and Agreement by observing the coherence of our communications by looking at consistency, authenticity, continuity, credibility and structure of our communications (Coherence). The next key we are going to explore is the key of Clarity.
If you ask people about how clear they are in their own communication, they would probably rate themselves very highly. If you ask them about how clear other people are in their communication, they probably will rate them rather poorly. If you reverse the experiment, you get opposite results. In other words, people overestimate their own clarity of communication and are somewhat upset if they are being misunderstood or if they cannot reach an agreement with the other person.
The concept of clarity is related to the (1) content and the (2) consequences of the communication. Most books on communication only address (1) and give you a million tips on how to de-clutter your communication. Great. This is good and necessary. But it is not sufficient to achieve clarity. In other words, clarity must also answer to the questions "what do you want? and "what"s in it for me?" Whenever we complain about a communication being unclear, fuzzy, ambiguous or confusing, it is usually related to the fact that someone is beating about the bush in so many words. In other cases we ourselves might actually not be quite so sure about what we actually want the other person to do, and how we would explain to them why they should actually do it.
Here is an example as a repeat from the introduction chapter, this time in the context of clarity:
Spouse 1: "The trash bin is full"
Spouse 2: "I know"
The content of the above communication is actually quite simple and unambiguous. There is no room for interpretation on the information content (bin = full). The same is true for the answer. It clearly acknowledges the receipt of the information (I know). What makes this conversation potentially explosive? The lack of consequences associated with the content. Spouse 2 does not know that spouse 1 might actually trying to communicate something like the following:
Spouse 1: Please take out the trash, I have done it the last 3 times.I expect you to do it this time or you can forget about me getting your groceries from the car.
Spouse 2: Sure, I will do it in one hour when I go out to the store to pick up some more fruit.
What I am trying to communicate in this chapter is: If we want our communications to be clear, of course we need to make sure that send a message that is simple and easy to understand, free of jargon and redundant complexities. There are 1000"s of books written about clarity and simplicity and I do not intend to rewrite them. I think the key to the PERCEPTION of clarity is to accompany the messages and communications with context around the consequences of the communication. In other words, the intended outcome of the communication. This is where clarity loops back to key number 2 of the CommFlow System (Intent).
Here are some examples for clarity in communications where the 2 key questions "what do you want", and "what's in it for me" are clearly addressed
Instead of: "There is a funny smell in this room"
We could say: "Can someone open a window to let some fresh air in, and the bad air out?"
Instead of: "We need to improve our communication skills"
We could say: "Let"s decide which sales training class to attend so we can all get some feedback"
Instead of: "This software solution is easy to use and enhances collaboration"
We could say "Take the test drive of our software with your team. No training required."
I am sure you can come up with dozens of more examples, and that is actually the core of the exercise for the Clarity chapter of the CommFlow System. "Wait", you might say "This looks like there is only the kind of communication where one person wants another person to do something". As a matter of fact: Yes. I believe there is always an inherent or implicit intent in any communication. The only question is how obvious that intent is expressed. Even in socializing conversations, that are purely "humming along" as "small talk" and "rapport" building, these conversations tend to be more rich and fulfilling when they are structured around asking for feedback and opinions (what do you want?), and involving the community of the audience (What's in it for me?)
Exercise: Clarity
For the next several weeks, watch out for communications situations where either your message is misunderstood, misconstrued, or not leading to the intended outcome. This could also be a situation where you are the one that is being confused or mislead by someone"s communications. Analyze the communication based on the following parameters:
(1) Community .. how did the flow relate to the community aspects of the communication partners.
(2) Intent ... did the communication state a clear intent or planned outcome (what do you want?)
(3) Coherence .. was the communication consistent, authentic, credible, continuous and structured?
(4) Clarity ... did the communication establish an answer to "what is in it for me?"
If you are skeptical if this is the best way to establish clarity, I fully understand. But please have patience for a few weeks and put the theory to the test. Communications tend to be evaluated as clear if they leave no room for interpretation as to what is wanted, and what will happen if the the result is achieved. Remember the introductory chapters of the CommFlow System where I introduced the SCARF acronym to establish how the brain constantly evaluates every situation according to the 5 attributes of Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness and Fairness. Clear communications help the brain make the decision if a situation is good (reward) or bad (fight/flight). The brain likes simplicity. Let's make our communications work that way too.
How often have we heard this sentence? It is usually the lead in to an implicit or explicit threat of a consequence of some action on non-action. The question is: What are we trying to do the other times, when we are not using the preamble of "let me be perfectly clear".. are we trying to be unclear .. huh? what gives?
Welcome to chapter 15 of the CommFlow System. Thank you for continuing to read. Note: At this point you should have identified your communication mentor or advisor. (If you don't know what I am speaking of, you have probably not read the introductory chapters and chapters 1 - 14. I recommend to read these first to obtain the context of chapter 15)
We have now laid a foundation for excellence in communication in that we are trying to observe the behavior and cultural aspects of our communication partners and target audience (Community). We are also trying to establish an intention for each communication flow based on the rule that the meaning of each communication is embedded in the result we achieve (Intent). In addition, we also are beginning to use the third key to Understanding and Agreement by observing the coherence of our communications by looking at consistency, authenticity, continuity, credibility and structure of our communications (Coherence). The next key we are going to explore is the key of Clarity.
If you ask people about how clear they are in their own communication, they would probably rate themselves very highly. If you ask them about how clear other people are in their communication, they probably will rate them rather poorly. If you reverse the experiment, you get opposite results. In other words, people overestimate their own clarity of communication and are somewhat upset if they are being misunderstood or if they cannot reach an agreement with the other person.
The concept of clarity is related to the (1) content and the (2) consequences of the communication. Most books on communication only address (1) and give you a million tips on how to de-clutter your communication. Great. This is good and necessary. But it is not sufficient to achieve clarity. In other words, clarity must also answer to the questions "what do you want? and "what"s in it for me?" Whenever we complain about a communication being unclear, fuzzy, ambiguous or confusing, it is usually related to the fact that someone is beating about the bush in so many words. In other cases we ourselves might actually not be quite so sure about what we actually want the other person to do, and how we would explain to them why they should actually do it.
Here is an example as a repeat from the introduction chapter, this time in the context of clarity:
Spouse 1: "The trash bin is full"
Spouse 2: "I know"
The content of the above communication is actually quite simple and unambiguous. There is no room for interpretation on the information content (bin = full). The same is true for the answer. It clearly acknowledges the receipt of the information (I know). What makes this conversation potentially explosive? The lack of consequences associated with the content. Spouse 2 does not know that spouse 1 might actually trying to communicate something like the following:
Spouse 1: Please take out the trash, I have done it the last 3 times.I expect you to do it this time or you can forget about me getting your groceries from the car.
Spouse 2: Sure, I will do it in one hour when I go out to the store to pick up some more fruit.
What I am trying to communicate in this chapter is: If we want our communications to be clear, of course we need to make sure that send a message that is simple and easy to understand, free of jargon and redundant complexities. There are 1000"s of books written about clarity and simplicity and I do not intend to rewrite them. I think the key to the PERCEPTION of clarity is to accompany the messages and communications with context around the consequences of the communication. In other words, the intended outcome of the communication. This is where clarity loops back to key number 2 of the CommFlow System (Intent).
Here are some examples for clarity in communications where the 2 key questions "what do you want", and "what's in it for me" are clearly addressed
Instead of: "There is a funny smell in this room"
We could say: "Can someone open a window to let some fresh air in, and the bad air out?"
Instead of: "We need to improve our communication skills"
We could say: "Let"s decide which sales training class to attend so we can all get some feedback"
Instead of: "This software solution is easy to use and enhances collaboration"
We could say "Take the test drive of our software with your team. No training required."
I am sure you can come up with dozens of more examples, and that is actually the core of the exercise for the Clarity chapter of the CommFlow System. "Wait", you might say "This looks like there is only the kind of communication where one person wants another person to do something". As a matter of fact: Yes. I believe there is always an inherent or implicit intent in any communication. The only question is how obvious that intent is expressed. Even in socializing conversations, that are purely "humming along" as "small talk" and "rapport" building, these conversations tend to be more rich and fulfilling when they are structured around asking for feedback and opinions (what do you want?), and involving the community of the audience (What's in it for me?)
Exercise: Clarity
For the next several weeks, watch out for communications situations where either your message is misunderstood, misconstrued, or not leading to the intended outcome. This could also be a situation where you are the one that is being confused or mislead by someone"s communications. Analyze the communication based on the following parameters:
(1) Community .. how did the flow relate to the community aspects of the communication partners.
(2) Intent ... did the communication state a clear intent or planned outcome (what do you want?)
(3) Coherence .. was the communication consistent, authentic, credible, continuous and structured?
(4) Clarity ... did the communication establish an answer to "what is in it for me?"
If you are skeptical if this is the best way to establish clarity, I fully understand. But please have patience for a few weeks and put the theory to the test. Communications tend to be evaluated as clear if they leave no room for interpretation as to what is wanted, and what will happen if the the result is achieved. Remember the introductory chapters of the CommFlow System where I introduced the SCARF acronym to establish how the brain constantly evaluates every situation according to the 5 attributes of Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness and Fairness. Clear communications help the brain make the decision if a situation is good (reward) or bad (fight/flight). The brain likes simplicity. Let's make our communications work that way too.
No comments:
Post a Comment