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.