Capacity for Language Introduces Uncertainty
November 18th, 2003 by Hal
There's a book or two (or three) on this topic. I'll make a few points. Perhaps you can add to them with your comments.
n.b. Remember the context of this posting is doing projects.
We take our capacity for speaking for granted. We can't remember a time when we couldn't speak. It's just what we do. But communicating with language is not straight forward. We think the meaning of our speaking is clear, only to discover the listener understood something different than we meant. Humberto Maturana claims denotative meaning (precise definitions) in speaking is not possible; there is only connotation (inference, nuance). He's saying that each of us gives meaning to what we hear based on the distinctions we can make, our preoccupations (concerns) at the time, and the relationship we have with the speaker. In other words, in spite of the care we give to saying what we mean, people will listen what they listen.
One of the tragedies of projects is when someone sees that action is required but they fail to speak about it. Sure, sometimes we see people complaining to a friend or coworker. But they don't speak up to a person who's in a position to act. We can speculate why this is the case. Frankly, it's not useful. Just knowing that people don't speak up is enough to begin changing the behavior of people with the authority to act.
Another tragedy of the project setting is when people don't listen. Not just the bosses. Finish the sentence, "How many times have I told you ..?" We've all said that. Breakdowns are inevitable when their are patterns of not listening. Further, not listening leads to not speaking. "Hey, I'm justified in keeping my mouth shut. They don't listen to me anyway."
The work of projects is coordinated through conversations. It's not about process. It's not about schedules. Work is certainly not coordinated through controls. It's all about conversations, particularly requests and promises. Yet people don't see the coordinating aspects of commitment conversations. Instead, they see writing code, hanging doors, designing product, and doing one report after the other. It fits that people don't get highly competent at something they don't see.
To recap,
- People listen what they listen, not necessarily what was intended.
- People don't speak when they have something to say.
- People don't listen to what others are saying.
- People don't speak or listen for commitments.
Disaster? You bet! But it is also the good news for project managers/leaders. We can anticipate that we'll encounter one or all four conditions throughout our projects. I bet you will find examples today!
Related Posts
- 55 Must-Read Books + 2 I'd love to share the Business 2.0 list The Books that Matter, but it won't be published online for another 8 days. The...
- Reduce Uncertainty by Promising Reliably The authors of Managing Project Uncertainty suggest the usual practices of risk management on projects fall short of wha...
- Everyone’s an Expert Seth Godin is on a roll. In the last three months he's published 3 e-books and is launching a new website (business?)...
- Projects Are People-Centered Continuing in the series of postings on variation as an enabler let's explore more of what I mean by "projects are peo...
- Embrace Uncertainty A few of my colleagues and friends were given a book coauthored by Robert J. De Koch, COO of The Boldt Company and Phill...
November 19th, 2003 at 3:27 pm
Frank and Laurent make helpful additions. Frank jumped the gun on me. I’m working thru what we can do as project mgrs and leaders acknowledging the conditions of our human-ness.
To clarify, I am not saying it is human nature. For instance, that people don’t listen to what others are saying is not the nature. It is what we are likely to find operating in a situation. More likely it’s just habit. This might be a quibble.
I share Frank’s view that behavior changes through time. I speak of Humberto Maturana. He co-authored the book The Tree of Knowledge. He’s a biologist and philosopher. Some might also say a cognitive scientist. Anyway, here’s the important lesson for me: changing what we do and who we do it with changes who we are. It’s great news for the PM. By designing different ways for team members to engage and then seeing that they do engage that way we can bring about a shift in what Frank calls the ‘the lowest level of human behavior’.
To Laurent’s points, the two models he mentions offer a way of analyzing a conversation, but miss the situational-personal in-the-moment explanation of not speaking and not listening. I’ll share my thoughts on this in a coming posting. I’ve been holding back on this, mostly because there’s so much to say that requires a foundation for saying it. I’ve been considering writing a 10-page paper on it. Maybe I’ll just blog it then put the article together…
Thanks guys! :+:
November 19th, 2003 at 4:19 pm
This thread is very timely.
I am currently gathering information to write a paper for a college class I am taking on language and society. The subject is on the breakdown of language comprehension between different professionals.
I am borrowing the Saussure and Sapir – Whorf thesis that Language is developed by social groups to communicate shared concepts. The words and phrases we use develop meaning by group agreement. Only that social in-group fully understands the concept assigned to the words or phrases that express thought.
I think a big challenge to communications is that in our project teams we have people from several different social groups that are brought together - often for the first time - for a temporary endeavor. Within these groups they have developed their own language and modes of communications. They hold in their linguistic toolbox words and phrases for communicating concepts that the other team members do not share.
A project team is the forming of a new social group and this group must develop its own agreements that connect words to concepts to effectively communicate. Actively attempting communications, encountering the breakdown and having the patients to attempt repair is the only way the team can accomplish this.
Maybe the things that we can do as project managers are;
Make the team members aware of this linguistic difference so unexpected breakdowns do not frustrate them.
Help to develop linguistic bridges between the team members differing words – concept associations.
Encourage the team members to communicate with each other on a constant and regular bias.
Thanks
November 19th, 2003 at 6:16 pm
Project teams need a glossary of terms specifically defining the terms important to the team. The glossary should grow as the project progresses.
Proposals and other definitional documents also need terms defined within them. Contracts usually have a section to define terms, but then introduces legalistic language that tends to negate the added clarity. A contract should not be the only place to turn for clarity.
I agree that awareness of the probable differing meanings of terms among team members is key. Creation of a true project culture, including terminology will help avoid breakdowns.