When it comes to project communications, typically we operate with a standard set of terms and a very well structured vision.
We know that communication is the transition of information from one party to another (or to many other parties). We know that communication can be written or verbal.
We know that it can be formal or informal. We choose the formal communication style to write official documents and to speak at business conferences, yet we communicate informally with our teammates and friends.
We know that there are different types of communication media - documents, in-person meetings, email messages, phone calls, video conferences and face-to-face communication, amongst others.
We also know that there could be different communication channels that are used for information transmission between the sender and the recipient.
We know that the information could be broadcasted so that many people can receive it. There is a term used in Agile theory called “osmotic communication”, where people capture the information just because they are co-located.
Finally, we know that in order to make sure that the communicated information was received, the sender should wait for acknowledgement from the recipient.
But does the fact that the information was received imply that the communication was successful?
Does the act of communication end when a person receives a message and reads it? Does the information flow stop at that particular moment? – I believe that in many cases, it does not.
If the message being communicated is short and clear, like an acknowledgement itself, then yes, it is received, understood and fully communicated (for example, “Your flight is on time”).
However, in many cases, even after a conversation is over, the information is still being absorbed, analyzed and interpreted by the recipient. Imagine, at the very end of your business day you receive an email from Kate, your development team lead. She informs you that unfortunately the development of the new product feature on your project will only be ready in 5 days instead of tomorrow. She gives you a very reasonable explanation why. She copies the customer on her email as well. Then she wishes you a good evening and logs off.
While you understand the message, the perception of the information is not yet over. You start thinking of how bad it is for your project, what your customer will feel now, what next steps you should undertake to minimize the impact, is this activity on your critical path and so on and so on...
You realize that your customer is also probably thinking about the message from Kate. At the end of the day, you analyze the message. You “tag” it with your brain’s suitable criteria of urgency, importance, positivity or negativity and other parameters and at some point in time, you park the message until the next communication with Kate or until you choose to act (in some cases, you park the message forever).
Only at that point does the communication from Kate reach its final destination.
The example I just gave refers to the message itself. In some cases, this communication flow can be even more complex.
Just think of the example from my other blog post, when Bob blames you for not doing something that you never promised you would do.“You said you’d send me the document”. But you never had that document in the first place and you never promised Bob you’d send it to him. And that happens at the end of the day on Friday.
Bob’s communication triggers many thoughts and emotions. If you are an experienced project manager, you would analyze the situation, determine the course of action, park the issue until Monday and act on your plan first thing Monday morning. But if Bob’s email took you by surprise, then it could pretty well spoil your weekend. You will be thinking of Bob’s reaction as well as of the reaction of your managers that were copied. What do they think now? And until you stop thinking, the actual communication is still on its way to you.
At the same time, your manager that received Bob’s email makes her own conclusions. She could be less emotional about the email than you are, but until she completes the analysis of Bob’s email, his communication is still coming to her.
This is why, when you have a chance to fix a situation when a false message settles in someone’s perception, finding the right time for the fix is important. Sometimes, you can fix the damage by communicating the correct information before the damaging message was even read. On other occasions, you can communicate the “remedy” while the message is still being analyzed.
In the Friday night example with Bob, it would make sense to park the question until Monday morning, then to have a conversation with Bob and to email everyone, once the miscommunication is cleared.
Most importantly: don’t let the miscommunication stress you out. Stay calm and the best solution will find you.