That Is Not True...

As we interact with other individuals, it may sometimes be the case that both our opinions differ: we see it one way, they see it another. Depending on the situation, the context, and the importance we assign to the disagreement, we may just let it go, or we may choose to engage in a conversation/discussion/debate. In a professional, business setting, if we decide to pursue that second route and make a case, we need to be careful with how we express that disagreement so that it is not perceived as confrontational, hostile, or even demeaning to the other person. A poor communication habit some people have is to use the phrase "That's not true" (or TNT for short) in the wrong context.

One such example comes to mind: my own interaction with a local bank representative. I went to the bank to inquire about credit cards. I was interested in a specific type of card, and since I had done my homework I knew the card was offered by the bank. When I talked to their customer service representative, I explained what I was interested in. She enquired why that type of card, and I explained that the stores I normally did business with only accepted that card. She responded: "That is not true. When I do my grocery shopping, they take any card." I explained that I did a lot of international travel and that different countries had different rules regarding the use of credit cards. She again responded: "That is not true. I have also travelled abroad."

What was wrong with that response was that the customer service representative was saying that something someone else (in this case, me) had experienced was not true. She could not really attest to the authenticity of the experience, so she was not in a position to use the TNT statment. What she should have done, instead, was to use a phrase such as: "My experience has been somewhat different" or "Maybe we have shopped at different places, because in my experience..." In other words, all she could be assertive about was her own experience, not someone else's. To tell someone else "Your experience, as you recount it, is not true" is arrogant and insulting, to say the least.

The TNT phrase may still be a valid option when we are among friends, and we are talking about facts that are in the public domain and cannot be refuted: historical documents, videos, audio recordings, common knowledge, and anything that can be proved as true or false is fair game. But in a business setting, or in a situation where we want to be nicer, more polite, and people are talking about personal opinions or experiences, the TNT is not the best choice. There several options we can use instead to express a different viewpoint, for example:

"I understand what you're saying. Now, what I'm saying is..."

"I see your point. How about [insert another point here]?"

"Well, there are different ways to look at it. For example..."

"Another way to look at it is..."

"We may have different backgrounds, and that may be why we see things differently. In my experience..."

"That's one possibility. Another possibility is..."

"That's one opinion. Some figures I have here indicate..."

In all those cases, we concede that the view expressed by our interlocutor may have some validity for them considering their background, situation, previous experience, etc., but at the same time we are expressing our view that a different option may be true. In those situations, the goal is to build towards a constructive, mutually enriching exchange, where both participants benefit from the experience.

Now, if we are talking about a political debate, that's a whole different story.

Miscommunication Vs. Misinterpretation

Communication, be it oral, written, non-verbal (gestural, symbolic), is a constant element in our daily lives. Whether we initiate the communication process, or we are at the receiving end of it, sending and receiving messages is part of what we do as human beings. The challenge is to make sure communication is effective. For effective communication to happen, the ideas and concepts conveyed in the original message created by the sender, have to be interpreted properly by the receiver of that message. It is easy for most of us to think of situations where that has not been the case, and communication has gone array.

When communications break down, two frequent reasons are that the message was miscommunicated, or it was misinterpreted. Sometimes people use these two terms almost interchangeably, but in reality they are far from being synonyms. A miscommunication happens when the sender of the message does not communicate properly, e.g., when a message is ambiguous, incomplete, or inaccurate. A misinterpretation occurs when the recipient of the message does not decode, read, or interpret the message properly. In both cases, a misunderstanding (i.e., confusion, mix-up) may ensue.


Source: http://www.linuxkungfu.org/images/fun/geek/project.jpg


A number of people may use those terms incorrectly without realizing it. But those who know the difference may try to manipulate a conversation to avoid accountability for their part of the communication process. In order to exemplify this notion, let us consider the following dialogue:

Jack: "Hey, is that report ready yet?"
Jill: "Oh, is it due already?"
Jack: "Yes, the memo said it had to be sent out by 10 am, almost an hour ago."
Jill: "My, I was convinced it was 1 pm. I'm terribly sorry for the miscommunication. I'll have it ready within the next hour. Will that work for you?"
Jack: "Ok, I guess we can delay it a little bit. Make sure it's ready, will you?"
Jill: "No problem. I apologize again for the miscommunication."

Did you notice what Jill did? In a very subtle way, she did not admit to having read the memo incorrectly. She referred to a miscommunication, which means someone else (not her) did not communicate things properly. In this case, her response points to the memo not being clear. But Jack did not catch on that, and he thought Jill was apologizing for having misread the information in the memo.

Here is another example during an annual review meeting:

Tom: "You know, Jerry, sometimes the way you say things may be a bit strong, even offensive."
Jerry: "Why?! Like what?!"
Tom: "Well, for instance, you tend to say 'You're wrong!' when you could say something like 'That's one option. Another option that comes to mind is...' People wouldn't feel so bad if you softened your ways a little."
Jerry: "Well, I'm sorry that people misinterpret what I say."

So, do you think Jerry is being apologetic and will change his ways? Probably not. If he sees this as misinterpretation, then he thinks it is someone else's responsibility to interpret things properly. He is not considering for a minute that he may be communicating things improperly (by using the wrong tone in his messages). As such, his actions and demeanor will probably not change, unless Tom detects the subtlety, and helps Jerry realize that the problem may be one of communication style (Jerry's), not of interpretation (by others).

This use of miscommunicate/misinterpret to get away with something or to avoid accountability is more common than you would think. If you start paying attention to this usage during meetings, office interactions, and similar situations, you may pick on this trick. Next time someone tells you "I'm sorry that my message was not interpreted correctly", you know who they are placing the blame on.

IWAS Interactive

Labor market indicators in Canada reveal a growing tendency in the past couple of decades: an important part of that workforce is (or will be) composed of Internationally Educated Professionals (IEPs). A number of programs, sometimes with provincial funding and support, have been created to ease the transition of those IEPs into the Canadian workplace environment. One such program, the Integrated Work Experience Strategy (IWES), helps participant improve communicacion skills, acquire workplace cultural intelligence, develop networking habits, and implement good job searching strategies. The program is geared towards ICT professionals, and it was originally developed by the Information and Communication Technology Council of Canada (ICTC). 

As I was relaxing in High Park, sitting at my favorite bench overlooking Granadier Pond and the maple leaf-shaped flower bed, I started going over the IWES program goals and objectives, and how it benefits both IEPs and Canadian employers. I also started thinking about how being new to the country and not being able to make a significant contribution to this society impacts those highly qualified IEPs. While I was pondering these ideas, I realized that the name of the program, IWES (pronounced "ai-wes") sounds very similar to "I was". In an interesting play on words, it may be the case that someone participating in the IWES program is in an "I was" state of mind, in the sense that they had a position, a network, a reputation in their countries of origin before immigrating to Canada. Now those IEPs may feel they "are not" at this point, and they may have to make some adjustments to join the Canadian workforce and "be" again.

As my mind worked through these things, and starting at the IWES-I Was pun, I eventually came up with a pseudo-Haiku way for an IEP to think of their previous situation (I Was), their current situation or where they are now, and where they would like to be:

                  |
                  |          I Was
                  |
IWAS         |     But Now I'm Not
                  |
                  |     Yet, I'd Like to Be
                  |

To make this an interactive dialogue, here is one way I would complete the sentences for myself:

I was: able to combine my different backgrounds in training and development, ICT, and linguistics, in a position that allowed me to make a difference in my organization, and that provided me with personal and professional development opportunities.

But now I'm not: able to use all my skills, although I'm developing new ones.

Yet, I'd like to be: able to grow within a company to roles of increasing responsibility, where I can develop new skills and take on new challenges.

If you are an IEP, what would you say are the things that you were, or had the opportunity to do, before immigrating to Canada? What is it that you cannot do currently, and what would you like to do?

To continue with this interactive exchange, you can post your ideas in the comments section. This will hopefully create a very rich thread all readers can benefit from. Anonymous posts are perfectly fine.

From Fake-Nice to Feel-Good

Providing corrective feedback (i.e., feedback that entails the receiver will have to change behaviors, attitudes, or methods) may prove difficult if we do not want to hurt the feelings of the person we are talking to. The challenge is to deliver what could be received as bad news in a way that reflects our consideration and respect for our interlocutor.

A common method to provide that type of feedback, as usually taught in communication classes, workshops, and supervisor training, is what some call the Feel-Good sandwich.

The way that method works is simple: we say something good, then we provide the corrective feedback we wanted to give in the first place, and then we wrap it up with something good. As easy as it may sound, if the sandwich is not prepared properly, our intentions (i.e., to say something negative) may be completely transparent to our interlocutor, and we may come across as just plain fake. Nice, but fake, i.e., Fake-Nice.

The Fake-Nice feedback may creep up on us, and we may deliver it without even noticing. In order to understand this concept better, let us consider the two pieces of feedback below:

A- "That interface you designed for the project is great. By the way, when we presented it to the client, you should have worn a tie. Still, we were all proud of the good job you did for our team."

B- "That tie you are wearing is really nice. However, ties should not be worn in the workshop. It looks really nice on you, though."

At first glance the two items seem to have the Positive-Negative-Positive structure we want. An experienced communicator, however, would quickly notice that Example A is a true Feel-Good sandwich, while Example B is a Fake-Nice statement. In other words, the speaker using Example A would come across as someone who cares about the receiver of the feedback, while the speaker using Example B could be perceived as fake.

Why would an experienced communicator perceive those statements differently? There are 3 main reasons for that:

1- In Example A the negative part (i.e., "you should have worn a tie") is unrelated to the initial positive part (i.e., "the interface...is great"). This means that, even though there was negative comment, that person also received a genuine, real compliment about job performance that, at the end of the day, still holds value. In Example B, however, the negative part (i.e., "ties should not be worn in the workshop") overrides the initial positive part (i.e., "that tie...is really nice). As such, there is no positive comment to hold on to, and the feedback is now perceived in a more negative light. On top of that, the initial compliment may now be seen as what it was: a distractive maneuver to deliver the blow.

2- In Example A the speaker uses a casual transition (i.e., "By the way..."), which does not detract from the previous sentence. In Example B, on the other hand, a transition that implies a contradiction (i.e., "However") is used. Other connectors, such as "but", "still", etc., carry the same effect: what is said next overrides the importance of what was said before. In that example, then, the fact that the tie is nice does not hold any value (except that of being a fake statement). The real message is that ties are not to be worn in the workshop, regardless of how nice they are.

3-  In Example A, the compliment was job-related: the interface designed for the project was great. That is something that team member can still quote as an achievement. In Example B, on the other hand, the compliment was not job-related: wearing a nice tie (and in a place where ties should not be worn, of all places) will not get that team member any extra credit with the boss.

The three maxims of an effective Feel-Good sandwich, then, can be summarized in the following way:

Maxim 1: make a compliment that is not related to the negative comment. If your negative statement overrides the compliment, there will be no "good" in "Feel-Good". Additionally, the receiver may feel the compliment was not really heartfelt.

Maxim 2: use connectors that are as neutral as possible. Avoid connectors such as "however", "but", "still", "yet", and similar ones that introduce a contradiction. If the positive comment is overridden, the recipient may wonder if the comment was sincere at all.

Maxim 3: find a real compliment to make, one that is job-related. If you compliment on trivial things, it will be clear your intention to compliment was not sincere.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you want to try and apply these maxims? Complete the activity below.

Exercise:
Think of at least one example of a Fake-Nice statement that you have received, given, or heard about, and modify it to make it a real, heartfelt Feel-Good sandwich. If you like, share both versions in the comments section.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: These materials are Copyright © 2010 Roberto Perez Galluccio - Used with permission from the author