Language limits
Edward de Bono, the famous lateral thinking guru, suggests that language is really difficult to work with, and often doesn’t convey what we actually mean, or takes too long to convey complex thoughts and emotions without being misunderstood. Although I have not heard him make the connection, I think he is even more correct in his assertions as they apply to emails, blogs, texts, SMS and other text based communications. We all know how easy it is to be misunderstood, or for incorrect emotions to be read into our words (or lack of words, as the case may be). This is even further complicated by the multiplicity of languages in use in the world these days.
de Bono suggests that we work on an encyclopedia of code phrases, probably referenced by numbers, to help us deal with complex issues quite quickly. You can read about his thinking at http://www.thinkingmanagers.com/management/management-language.php and http://www.edwarddebono.com/concept4.htm.
Emoticons were a small step in this direction, helping to put some emotional content to stark words. But I like de Bono’s idea. Maybe its too tough to make a single, global encyclopedia of codes, but within a signle company it is certainly possible, and would grow as a collaborative effort. The idea would be to use a wiki, or similar technology, to collaboratively develop a set of codes that everyone can later reference.
So, for example:
- 15: I like what you’ve said, but I don’t have time to respond to it.
- 16: I’m not happy with what you’ve said, and need some more time to think it through, so I am not going to send you a response now.
- 17: I don’t have time to even evaluate what you’ve said. If its really important, please respond to me and give me a reason to take some of my precious time to look at this issue in more detail and apply my mind to it.
- 36: I am not really commited to what I’ve just written, so if you think I’m wrong, don’t get all tense, just hit reply and help me see it your way.
- 37: I think I am right about this issue, but there’s something fuzzy about it in my mind, so if I am not seeing something then feel free to let me know.
- 38: I’m convinced I am right about this issue, so only argue with me if you REALLY have a good reason to do so.
- 39: I am passionate about what I have just said. I am prepared to die for it, and will fight for it. I’m not messing around or joking, so take it seriously.
And so on….
You just pop these codes at the top or bottom of emails/paragraphs, to help readers process the info.
If you’re interested in this, let me know. For our internal TmTd use, we can create a wiki to develop our own code sheet.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
I like the idea behind the codes but I think pictures would work better. Maybe a combination of emoticons and pictures? There *must* be a repository on the net somewhere…check out http://www.smileyworld.com/emoticons/categoryresults.asp?category=Moods
My communications rule of thumb is always: The more complex the message you want to convey, the broader the communication channel should be. Complexity increases dramatically when you want to communicate emotions, or when you are emotional about the topic you are communicating. On a continuum of narrow communication channel to broad communication channel, I gues you will find SMS; Email; Phone; Face to face. Ironically, the more complex or intense the emotion around an issue, the easier it becomes to (cowardly) revert to a narrower channel – with devasting effects as people read the wrong things into your email or SMS. So usually when I feel it will be easier to just deal with an issue via SMS or email, I force myself to rather call or coffee that person.
This thinking from de Bono to try to increase the “bandwidth” of the communication channel by linking a code to a more complex description of emotion, thus makes sense on one level. On another level it now becomes very dangerous if you use the wrong codes…or if the coding system is not exactly understood by everyone in the same way.
Still I think it would be fun to experiment with this – especially in a context like ours where we already have strong relationships. I agree with Roger that pictures communicate a broader message than words. And I still think that, if the message you want to communicate is part of conflict-communication between you and the receiver, to rather pick up the phone or make a pot of coffee – especially if a long-term relationship is what you want with this person.
Is this not another level of communication?
The advent of telephones must have an introduced a serious learning curve to people who had only ever communicated face to face or via the postal service. Surely they would have had to learn ‘telephone etiquette’? I’m sure that the early pioneers would automatically have checked their hair in the mirror and smoothed the front of their dress when the phone rang – a throwback to what they would automatically have done when the doorbell rang.
So with each new communication vehicle, there are new challenges and pitfalls. And it’s up to the pioneers to negotiate their way through this.
In 5 years time we will be facing another new communication vehicle and will have to find our way through that as well. And in hindsight we might find that what concerns us now is maybe not an issue then?
Ho Hum. Graeme, we should have know about this earlier?
I really like the idea. Would be interesting to see how quickly we could absorb it here and carry it over to the world beyond TmTd.
I don’t know about this. The idea of looking up a “phrase” of what I’m trying to “say” on some reference table and then sticking a number/code into my communication just wouldn’t work for me. But then that’s me.
Personally, I don’t want to “communicate by numbers”. It’s like “paint by number” … all very pretty, but how personal is it? Sure we’ll have all these very pleasant conversations with eachother and avoid all kinds of miscommunication … but then, isn’t it the miscommunication that forces us to really get to know each other? To ask further questions, to argue, to explore.
Is “communicate by number” an easy way out? Are we becoming to lazy to tackle complex communication?
I don’t think communication of complex issues (codes or no codes) is ever going to be an easy thing … because as humans we all bring our own unique emotions, pre-conceptions and ideas to the table. But therein lies the diversity and the challenge.
OK, I’m doing it at http://tmtd.biz/wikid/index.php/The_Language_Project
Hi Graeme
Had a look and I’m in two minds about this. I agree that there is a lot of room for misunderstandings in this form of communication. But the use of codes (while based on a solid concept) feels a little too ordered to me. It takes the nuances out of communicating and turns it into a completely objective, fact-based exercise.
It begins to eliminate the kind of chaos that results in energetic impassioned communicating.
People used to be (and still are) judged on their appearance first and their speech and mannerisms second. We never had to resort to pasting codes on our foreheads as a warning ‘I had a fight with my boyfriend last night so if I’m a little short and abrupt this morning at work it’s not personal’.
Part of uncovering facets of people and building relationships is the chaos that surrounds it.
Although I can see the place for these codes, I don’t think they should become an excuse for people to become so PC that they become lazy in communicating and start relying on these codes to do it for them.
And also, with the codes being number based, with all by back and forth referring, my reading time has just doubled!