Communication breakdowns happen a lot more than most of us think. It may be obvious that with a wide range of organizational associates, relationship breakdowns are inevitable. But candidly, it also happens regularly with one-on-ones. The actual researched percentage of misunderstanding and breakdown in an ordinary work conversation is so high you won’t believe me without extensive explanation. So, I won’t share the percentage. But suppose a tech manager is relating to a colleague in sales. That’s a set-up for breakdown. Inevitably, they’re working on different timelines, based on different objectives. Furthermore, the rewards are typically conflicting, the techie on salary and sales on commission.
But add four or five more people into the mix, all from different organizational disciplines, and you’re not just adding to the potential for relationship breakdowns, you’re both multiplying and speeding up the potential for misunderstanding and breakdown. Inevitably, conflicts over personnel, resource allocation, timelines and turf, surface. Differences of objectives, strategies, measures of success and even values can escalate the emotions. We have a “communication breakdown" is not just Led Zeppelin, it remains a common buzzword for these differences. In a real sense, however, the above relationships are not, strictly speaking, "communication breakdowns." The parties involved understand exactly what's going on and they are effective at communicating their differences, and hopefully, negotiating them. They involve trust and competition, usually over scarce resources of one kind or another. What makes interpersonal breakdowns especially difficult is that resolution often requires behavioral negotiation skills, skills more complex than negotiating products and dollars.
Candidly, the above differences that we label "communication breakdowns" are neither the most common nor the most personally painful. There are, instead, some very common barriers and breakdowns that get in the way of effective relationships that can be even more damaging than the above list. The really damaging barriers are about misunderstanding another person's point of view. Indeed, I've found that that the most common barriers and breakdowns in organizations are inevitably about relational breakdowns. What makes these interpersonal breakdowns so difficult is that dealing with hard products is a lot different than dealing with the barriers posed by soft people feelings. So, when the breakdown is interpersonal, these breakdowns can require behavioral conversations and at least basic behavioral negotiation skills. Behavioral skill of either type is not always available, so the breakdown remains unresolved or pushed up the ladder.
Attribution theory
The best way to understand these breakdowns is through what is known as "attribution theory" which deals with the ways people interpret observed facts and explain others’ as well as their own behavior. What’s significant about attribution is that the causes we use to explain another’s behavior impacts the way we think about, feel about and behave toward that person. The practice is so widespread that attributions can be made of others’ behaviors without an observable cause. Of course, it takes very little thinking to realize that observed behaviors can be interpreted in numerous ways. Furthermore, research also shows that once we've created our interpretation, right or wrong, it's very difficult to dislodge.
The process has become so questionable that in response to the potential for erroneous conclusions social scientists speak about the “fundamental attribution error.” The attribution error is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others--while under-emphasizing situational explanations. In other words, people are almost inherently biased to assume that a person's actions depend on what "kind of person” that manager or worker is rather than on the business context.
Let's say you're the manager of a technology team. Noticing that one of your employees seems to be working particularly hard over the past few weeks, you wonder why. You might conclude that his project timelines are causing his behavior. Or maybe he is angling for a raise. Could be that he's attempting to suck up. Maybe he's just bored and wants to keep busy. So, you decide he's angling for a raise, but a colleague tells you he's just sucking up. Whatever. You've drawn a potentially fallible conclusion based on observable fact. And, in spite of all that's been said, once you've decided he's angling for a raise, you'll reject most any other interpretation. And your relevant behavior will follow.
We also make positive inferences. You might think your employee genuinely wants to see his team succeed. Or perhaps, you decide, you've just never realized what a hard worker this guy is. But more often than not, it’s the negative attributions that follow, resulting in the relational breakdown. Bad is always more powerful than good. So, it’s rare for us to ask what’s going right about a situation? Instead, it’s what’s going wrong?
Those dangerous inferences
People draw their conclusions both from the work context as well as past history with a person when they come up with interpretations. But. . . underlying those interpretations are just a few basic assumptions that drive most of them (I prefer "inferences" even though "interpretation" is the more familiar. Getting used to the term "inferences" will support some other cool, problem-solving and decision-making skills.) Anyway, these wrongheaded inferences cause us to flare up, get disgusted, get angry and frustrated, be ashamed or even walk away for another day--or week—or even years. Some families have had major breakups merely because members interpreted the behavior of another using one of these inferences. Inferences, like conclusions are nothing more than opinions. The language just sounds more intelligent.
Thankfully, attribution theory provides us with a lot of insight into human relationships and communication. Here are three recurring and dangerous assumptions...
1.The other person perceives the situation the same way I do. On one occasion, for example, I led the first of many training sessions with a management team. I thought it was a great job. However, understanding that the manager might not perceive the situation the same way, I checked it out with her and one of the team members. Luckily, they both interpreted the situation the same way I did. But there have been situations where my perception was different than others, causing me to screw up or fail to make needed changes. Of course, sometimes I fail to check out my perception and remain in the dark. And sometimes getting accurate and useful feedback is difficult or nearly impossible, even though you ask for it. But not attempting to get feedback is even worse.
2.A person's behavior is fundamentally logical (rational). In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, people almost inherently believe that a person’s behavior is rational. Game theory, which still underlies much economics, stresses rational decision making. It strongly assumes that people do things for themselves, not for others. It also assumes that a player makes choices that lead to rewards or punishments based on the moves of others. It was assumed that most mortgage buyers, based on their incomes, would make rational decisions, and that financial managers would protect themselves from overloading on risk. Fat chance of that. Emotions and drives (greed, fear, desire, and sex) play a huge role in decision making. Sure, behaviors may have some tendencies to reason, but they aren't the full picture by a long shot. On a rare occasion, I find myself laughing at an interpretation of my behavior. Then, I rather quietly remind someone that an 80-year-old can make decisions about a subject differently than a teen-ager or even a forty-year-old. Seems to be news to some of my acquaintances.
3.The other person is experiencing or ought to experience the same feelings I do. Failure to finish a project on time may drive me nuts with frustration, but the other team member, who knows as much as I about the timelines, may not be bothered in the slightest. What causes great stress in one may cause delight in another. However, when you find yourself in a frustrating or very happy situation at work, you may believe that everyone else is experiencing the same feelings. Some are very risk-oriented, others not at all. Some easily embarrassed, others rarely. (Just last week a friend revealed that he’d talked about my input on a serious situation “very discreetly.” He seemed upset when I said that I really didn’t care whether he was discreet or not. I just didn’t experience the issue the way he did. I realized afterward that he’d have been happier if I had just said “thank you.”)
Some highly motivated by a situation, others frustrated by the same situation. You get PO'd by a person's performance, but she moves happily along. What'll be the response if you think a lot is at stake and she doesn't? Fireworks?
Our human tendency to judge and evaluate.
I believe it was Carl Rogers, the eminent psychologist of the last century, who taught that the major barrier to communication and relationships is our very human tendency to judge people. We approve of them when our interpretation of their behavior matches our assumptions of how they should act. If, for example my team mate says he's feeling crappy, knows I've got a tough timeline, but digs in and goes to work instead of giving in to his feelings and going home three hours early, I'm going to evaluate him very positively. But if he'd gone home early, I'd have judged his behavior and called him irresponsible. We all can disapprove of others' behavior very quickly and it can temper our relationships for good or ill?? Once more, as the research reveals, bad is inevitably more powerful than good.
How to manage attributions
The starting place is to keep these assumptions in your front lobes and realize they are just inferences, not facts. All three surface regularly, but my suspicion is that the first--believing the other person perceives the situation the same way I do--is the most common.
It's usually recommended that we try to shift our emphasis from ourselves to the other person's frame of reference. That'll work, but there's a simpler way. I've learned to put my inferences under immediate suspicion. And if, in a conversation, someone else shares a negative inference, my antennae go up immediately. One rule that I like to stick with is never to draw a negative conclusion about a person’s behavior until you’ve seen it repeated in four or five differing contexts.
When the inference is strategically important, I challenge it: "That's an interesting inference. What other ways could you interpret his or her behavior?" I regularly push myself and others to realize that there are a number of ways to interpret a person's behavior. In effect I have a conversation with myself and with others that basically says, "Oh, just cool it. Watch your inferences."
Second, we really don't know what a behavior means unless we ask the person. If it's a stressful situation, the person may or may not give you the straight skinny. She may just fudge or give you the brush-off, not wanting to deal with you.
Third, when I'm fatigued or highly stressed, I've learned to take myself out of the situation. Whatever conclusions I draw won't be trustworthy. Fatigue clouds my brain and leads to debilitating behaviors.
Finally, I’ll argue along with Malcolm Gladwell and plenty of others that in business human behaviors are more often driven by the business context than a person’s personality. That rule just doesn’t get paid nearly enough attention to.
Attributions and the fundamental attribution error are all part of being very human. So, learn to use the rules before drawing conclusions about human behavior. I’ve met a surprising number of people who act like they think their attributions are godlike and divine. Two have actually told me they never make an (attributional) error. I call that PUN—pure unadulterated nonsense!