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

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! :+:

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.