The Conversation Conundrum

Most of us have played the game Telephone. We begin with a clear phrase and whisper it to the next player. As the message is heard and interpreted by each person, it has the tendency to change. This presents a clear challenge, as each player may further muddle the original intent and alter it according to their own perspective, tone and volume. We may change or fill in words, deliberately alter the meaning or pass along no message due to our uncertainty.

We all play “Telephone” every day. We might misunderstand our partner’s request to pick up a particular item from the store or fail to see a friend’s point of view. However, in the workplace, these misunderstandings can often be compounded by the expectations (or lack thereof) we set for ourselves and coworkers. Our interpretation of what someone has said to us can vary significantly from the original meaning or intent. What if someone used the word “net” in a sentence and wasn’t clear about its meaning. We all know that “net” has several meanings; a tool that catches something, our net worth or net pay or the gathering of people. It can also be used as a shorthand for network or internet. Without clear context, the meaning or interpretation of our words can change. Alternatively, we might simply sound nonsensical. In the end, these miscommunications can result in mistakes in the workplace that could have easily been avoided. Mistakes lead to frustration, tension and finger-pointing that creates a judgmental and sometimes toxic atmosphere. As a staff member recently told me, “It’s every man for himself.”

This staff member’s comment alarmed me, and we began to discuss a variety of strategies to alter her workplace’s culture. We began with self-awareness; I asked her what kind of attitude and behavior she wanted to bring to work every day. At first, she pushed back and defaulted to her perspective of blaming others. She gave a variety of examples of how staff impeded one another and prevented healthy relationships. She felt helpless and resigned to her situation. I encouraged her and other teammates present to stop and think about their words and actions before interacting with one another. This would reduce negative interactions and misunderstandings. Next, I suggested that they take time to ensure that they were all on the same page via a process called active listening. Active listening promotes several key techniques which ensures that the complete message is being heard and understood. Key among those are providing feedback and eliminating judgement.

In this same facility, I encountered another situation where judgement and gossip led to animosity among staff. An employee felt that she was being targeted because of her cultural background. When she and I discussed her situation in my session, I suggested that she respond to untrue gossip by asking, “How do you know that it’s true?” When I returned to the facility, she excitedly told me that she had implemented this strategy. When accused of damaging property, she confronted the gossiper and asked her how she knew it was true. The gossiper was at a loss to answer her question. This employee asked the gossiper to please not spread rumors unless she had the factual basis to back up her claims. The next day, the gossiper welcomed this employee into her facility workplace.

Recent research shows that every avoided conversation costs the organization, on average, $7,500. This is money that could be better spent on recruiting and retaining staff, improving services or creating new initiatives. In the workplace, we tend to focus solely on getting the job done. We put our effort into accomplishing the tasks at hand. Seldom do we approach interpersonal relationships with the same vigor. However, if we were to establish a healthier process for meaningful conservation, we and our teammates would feel more satisfied and less stressed in the work environment.

Thank you to Jacob Blumenstock for collaborating with me on this post!