Is more or better communication always the answer? No, of
course not. Communication is not a silver bullet. It doesn’t solve every
problem.
People have different embedded values, opinions, and interests. And if they are strongly held, talking just ain’t gonna change minds. As probably most married (or unmarried) couples have noticed, certain issues don’t simply disappear no matter how much time is spent talking them over. My wife and I have been having pretty much the same conversation —over the design of a minor renovation project — for nigh on half a year, and we’re no closer to resolution, as far as I can tell. (Right now, chances are it will never happen!) This is despite the fact that in most other respects our marital communication seems to work reasonably well, I would venture.
Lincoln’s “hot
letter” routine
There are times when someone else’s problem isn’t yours, and
you don’t want it to become yours by starting a line of communication. There
are also times when you can avoid creating problems by restricting your
communication, when less is more.
This can be to the point where saying nothing at all may be
best for everyone involved. This might be true when, for example, you find
yourself on the verge of a fight, which could lead toward a rift in a relationship,
at work or elsewhere.
Imagine a team member or supervisor has written you email
criticizing your performance or questioning your judgment or abilities. Or they
have said something you find unfair and you are fuming. I’ve been there. In the
heat of the moment, the temptation arises to write them an angry response, explaining,
defending, rationalizing, setting the story straight. Quite possibly the tone
of your response skirts the bounds of what is seemly and professionally
acceptable. You marshal a series of points to make a brilliant argument, but
along the way you start coming across as some combination of defensive,
self-righteous, petty, and oversensitive. Believe me, it won’t make you look
good. It’s not a risk you want to take. However, by all means write that angry email
or text or tweet, but then…before you send it, hit delete.
Abraham Lincoln was a proponent of writing angry letters —
he called them “hot
letters” — but then he would simply not send them. He got whatever
he had to say off his chest, a therapeutic experience. Yet by not sending the
letter he avoided damaging a relationship or making a decision in anger. This
is a most excellent practice. It takes some discipline, but we would do well to
abide by it.
On the virtues of
being bland and brief
Of course, after you’ve written (and deleted) your hot
letter, you may still need to respond in some fashion. However, when you do, the
shorter and more innocuous the response, the better for all involved. I’ve
learned this the hard way.
Nowadays, if someone asks for my advice about what to write when
they are miffed about something, I generally encourage them to let it out all
out, to tell me what is bothering them…verbally. Then I tell them to write
their response but keep it cool, calm, professional, and brief.
Talking serves, among other things, a revelatory purpose. Through
talking (or communicating in some form) people reveal useful information, about
where they stand, their concerns, their values, etc. There is the subject at
hand, of course (e.g. the threat of artificial intelligence (AI) to human employment;
there is the attitude toward that subject (AI is going to be a huge risk); and
there is the way they express themselves, or the oratorical tone (distanced,
passionate, sardonic, etc.).
I’m willing to bet that, all things being equal, the longer
people talk, the more they reveal. And what they reveal comes not only through
words, but also through their body language, signals, etc. some of which maybe
intentional and some not.
In a previous
post, I wrote about how dialogue between stakeholders was such an
important, and yet not overly complicated, solution to many problems — particularly
those involving people or groups with different interests. The post touched on
several reasons why talking things out is so conducive to resolving issues. I urged readers to always consider it as a
potential solution.
The Los Angeles Times, in an article about how the recent horrific Sri Lanka Easter Sunday bombings were enabled by poor communication argued that “Free press and open communication foster debate and combat falsehoods and prejudices, between and within the various groups.”
The many things that talking is good for
To explore the phenomenon a bit further, talking with other people, like some of the most popular things in this world, serves multiple purposes. (Think of the multi-functionality of the smartphone, and before that, the Swiss Army knife, not to mention the mouth or, heck, the human being. I could go on.)
Talking allows you to inform — or misinform, if that is your goal — to explain, to learn, to exchange information, to persuade, to clarify a position, to explore areas of common interest, to negotiate, to connect and build a relationship, even to empower the other side. As to this last example, think of a regime which, after months of anti-regime protests, agrees to meet and talk with the protesters. This significantly enhances the protesters’ credibility. To go back to the assertion I opened with, talking is crucial for reducing uncertainty and doubt by putting more information out there.
The beauty of the live
experience
Unlike one-way or back and forth sporadic communication, with gaps in between, talking face-to-face (or via the various videoconferencing technologies) allows you to gauge the reaction of the person you are communicating with, and to modulate your message “in real time,” so to speak. That way, you can ensure your fellow interlocutor understood you correctly, and, if not, you can immediately modify impressions or correct misunderstandings.
Miscommunication –
communication’s evil twin
Poor communication — especially when it is absent, or only
one-way —
results in one or the other parties resorting to filling in the gaps with their
own imagination or assumptions. Even just small gaps in communication can
create uncertainty. If you’ve ever sent an email (or text) and not received an
answer, you’ll know what I mean. Did the other person not get it? Are they too
busy? Do they prefer to communicate through a different platform? Is it a low priority for them? Are they
oblivious? You don’t really know, and so you end up trying to figure out what
the lack of response means.
An interesting example of many people not communicating is the
United Kingdom’s so far unsuccessful attempt to leave the EU —
an event now postponed until the end of October 2019. It is not a stretch to
say that the latest twists and turns in this ongoing Brexit saga —
with the UK trying to extricate itself from the deep economic and regulatory
embrace of the EU — are very much about communication, and its evil twin,
miscommunication. After over two years of unsuccessfully trying to formulate a
plan for leaving the EU that also commands enough votes in Parliament, British
Prime Minister Theresa May finally decided to talk to opposition leader Jeremy
Corbyn in early April, in a last-ditch attempt to fashion a cross-party
compromise. This was something she had resisted for over two years, and many
have criticized May for focusing entirely on internal Tory party issues instead
of trying to find a consensus that a divided country could somehow live with.
While the likelihood of a satisfactory solution to the
Brexit conundrum doesn’t appear any closer, the fact that May agreed to sit
down with Corbyn was an acknowledgement that talking with the other side
presents a potential way out of the impasse.
The next time you open the newspaper and read about some issue or conflict, keep an eye out for mention of communication, or talks. It comes up quite a lot as a sticking point. Typically, observations will be about communication style, or lack of communication, or the need for communication. One reason Richard Plepler left HBO after it was taken over by AT&T was said to be that HBO and its new parent company had communication issues.
Strategic non-communication?
Of course, keeping people guessing by not letting them know what you are thinking or are planning, can be a tactical move. It can benefit you, and not them. It could simply be due to oblivion on the “silent party’s” part. Or it could be deliberate. This is how communication becomes “weaponized” as part of a power play. Needless to say, it is not pleasant to be on the receiving end of this game, especially when you are not prepared for it. What is the best response in such a case? Tit for tat, i.e. stop communicating yourself? Or seek out the opportunity to talk, knowing that you may be rebuffed? We should not forget, either, that there are also ways of communicating that don’t involve words. In a follow-up post, I will explore some of these options.
