Communication as a critical business skill(sphericalcowconsulting.com)
sphericalcowconsulting.com
Communication as a critical business skill
https://sphericalcowconsulting.com/2023/02/19/communication-as-a-critical-business-skill/
52 comments
> The focus on communication over skills, capabilities, and curiosity has opened a door for fraudulent executives, not to mention it’s ableist. There is an unaddressed problem of jargon spew, florid business speech which has become pervasive at executive levels inherently destructive to goals.
Being able to sound like a good communicator doesn't mean you are one. Recognizing that someone is spewing jargon without actually concisely delivering something valuable is also part of being good at communication. An equal amount of blame should go to those who nod in response to a jargon stream instead of interrupting, asking the right questions and clarifying what's communicated.
Being able to sound like a good communicator doesn't mean you are one. Recognizing that someone is spewing jargon without actually concisely delivering something valuable is also part of being good at communication. An equal amount of blame should go to those who nod in response to a jargon stream instead of interrupting, asking the right questions and clarifying what's communicated.
> not to mention it’s ableist
Recognizing the immense value of effective communication is ableist?
Coding is the easy part. Deciding what to code or how to code it with a team is the hard part and that requires effective communication, there's simply no way around it. That's what separates junior engineers from senior engineers who see the bigger picture.
Recognizing the immense value of effective communication is ableist?
Coding is the easy part. Deciding what to code or how to code it with a team is the hard part and that requires effective communication, there's simply no way around it. That's what separates junior engineers from senior engineers who see the bigger picture.
Assuming that what's perceived as "communication" is actually "effective" is begging the question.
Yes, sometimes not everyone's communication style works for every culture or group of people.
That's just how it works. Humans are messy like that.
That's just how it works. Humans are messy like that.
If we just shrug our shoulders about that then that opens the door to all kinds of discrimination. People generally find it easier to commuicate with people from the same culture, for example.
At some point being able to convey what is in your brain to another human and use that to influence their actions is a fundamental human skill. If you're bad at it you'll be at a disadvantage, simple as that.
you're right, we should actively work to remove the advantages that those elites that can communicate clearly and effectively have. There should be quotas for positions that are dominated by the best performing communicators, as determined by 360 reviews. Additionally, those identified as such should be forced to work remotely, on a 5 second delay and throttled bandwith connection.
Can't get around those pesky face to face interactions. Better to implant an equality-enforcing device under the skull to zap the brain every few seconds.
Effective communication is very easy to identify. Either it produces the required results (everyone understanding the problem and cooperating to produce and implement as close to an optimal solution as possible given resource constraints) or it doesn't.
> Either it produces the required results (everyone understanding the problem and cooperating to produce and implement as close to an optimal solution as possible given resource constraints) or it doesn't.
And how can you tell? If a project fails, is that because people didn't have a shared understanding of the problem, or did they understand it fine and just weren't able to find a solution?
And how can you tell? If a project fails, is that because people didn't have a shared understanding of the problem, or did they understand it fine and just weren't able to find a solution?
> not to mention it’s ableist.
Thank you! Seeing someone recognize this is wonderful.
I have a disability that has resulted in me being screwed over by the idea that communication, “emotional intelligence”, and other “soft skills” are somehow more important than my ability to do the job. I often feel that I’m alone when I acknowledge that I’m bad at those things, and that I do not intend to change that by constantly fighting my biology (“masking”).
Thank you! Seeing someone recognize this is wonderful.
I have a disability that has resulted in me being screwed over by the idea that communication, “emotional intelligence”, and other “soft skills” are somehow more important than my ability to do the job. I often feel that I’m alone when I acknowledge that I’m bad at those things, and that I do not intend to change that by constantly fighting my biology (“masking”).
It’s unfortunate for many people but the reality is “the job” is often not what it appears to be. Building software in a large org has little to do with writing code and everything to do with maintaining shared understanding of very complex systems among dozens or thousands of people.
Communication is the fundamental problem of doing anything at scale, and lots of valuable things are only valuable at scale.
Communication is the fundamental problem of doing anything at scale, and lots of valuable things are only valuable at scale.
I think there's a wide difference between actual effective communication and what people call effective communication. The former is characterized by getting to the heart of the problem and finding a resolution quickly while the latter is usually characterized by following social conventions to show deference to titles and individuals. I'm a bit biased here but I find autistic people tend to be competent at actual effective by saying the quiet part loud or addressing the elephant in the room even if people find it a little off-putting. That's not to say that's a good thing in every situation
This is assuming that there is no "selling" required. In a lot of cases some selling is required and then just being some sort of blunt isn't necessarily helpful.
I agree, but it's also easy to build up a clique along some lines, be they socioeconomic, or what politeness rules we decide are important, or whatever else, and those can easily exclude people who want to be kind, but also just tell the truth and make progress.
I think it's wise to be on the lookout for people and groups employing strategies, conscious or otherwise, that de facto degrade simple communication.
I think it's wise to be on the lookout for people and groups employing strategies, conscious or otherwise, that de facto degrade simple communication.
That reality was created by managers that only care about themselves and that see any capable individual as a threat. It doesn't have to be this way.
// not to mention it’s ableist.
A lot of work happens in teams. A lot of team work requires frequent communication/ synchronization.
Is saying "for jobs that require communication, you and your team will succeed more if you communicate well" abelist?
A lot of work happens in teams. A lot of team work requires frequent communication/ synchronization.
Is saying "for jobs that require communication, you and your team will succeed more if you communicate well" abelist?
Oh boy, this is true and unfortunately this has been the result of over-delegation that rose in prominence over some, give or take, +-70 years.
And I don't mean effective communication but specifically:
> the focus on communication OVER skills, capabilities, and curiosity
There was, are , and will be a lot of folks who get overlooked because of this and that sucks. But communication has, is, and will be a very important part of life and people. I guess the lesson in this is, if you are lacking in your communication don't handicap yourself unintentionally.
And I don't mean effective communication but specifically:
> the focus on communication OVER skills, capabilities, and curiosity
There was, are , and will be a lot of folks who get overlooked because of this and that sucks. But communication has, is, and will be a very important part of life and people. I guess the lesson in this is, if you are lacking in your communication don't handicap yourself unintentionally.
Perhaps the kind of communication needs to be clarified. There is communication with your teammates that gets the actual work done. Then there's communication with "higher ups" or management or the general public where there are opportunities for stealing credit and/or manipulation.
Effective communication is extremely challenging, and increasingly so. Async remote communication, a must these days, is still so lacking. So many misunderstandings and oversights that way.
I wish there was more content about that, and less about this vague idea of "communication". It's much like telling people in relationships their problems are about communication, yes human life is about communication, now what can they actually do about it besides "talk more"?
Forcing a grammar extension to automatically fix spelling mistakes, or enforcing silly rules like "no emoji" doesn't do anything to improve communication - the opposite, it gives people the idea they're communicating well when they're still communicating the same exact way in a new style.
I wish there was more content about that, and less about this vague idea of "communication". It's much like telling people in relationships their problems are about communication, yes human life is about communication, now what can they actually do about it besides "talk more"?
Forcing a grammar extension to automatically fix spelling mistakes, or enforcing silly rules like "no emoji" doesn't do anything to improve communication - the opposite, it gives people the idea they're communicating well when they're still communicating the same exact way in a new style.
"communication" is like "engage your core" - everyone says it, you know it's good, but you don't know what it means until you know what it means.
And unfortunately there are things in life that you can't just "teach" in a linear way. You have to be curious and self driven.
One example - let's say you and Bob always miscommunicate. Like you think you agree on something but weeks later it turns out you disappointed each other. What's your reaction? "Bob's a weird asshole?" Or is it more "I am curious, why does this always happens with Bob and me? Let me ask him. Let me ask others." Then you may actually have a chance to figure it out.
And unfortunately there are things in life that you can't just "teach" in a linear way. You have to be curious and self driven.
One example - let's say you and Bob always miscommunicate. Like you think you agree on something but weeks later it turns out you disappointed each other. What's your reaction? "Bob's a weird asshole?" Or is it more "I am curious, why does this always happens with Bob and me? Let me ask him. Let me ask others." Then you may actually have a chance to figure it out.
Also: Talk more, in a pointed way. Ask the question: does this make sense? Is this nonsense? Am I making sense? Am I spouting complete bullshit here? You might be surprised how effective of a communicator you become if you tack some variation of that question onto every third or fourth sentence.
The way I like to think about communication is like this.
My brain is trying to relay information/emotion/experience/? to your brain. However, since it can’t be done directly, I have to translate those contents into a medium that you can understand (e.g. reading or understanding a language). My being goes further and also leaks information/emotion/? via facial expressions, body language, tone, etc.
Both the conscious and subconscious are probably lower bandwidth than the brain plus the translation machinery isn’t full fidelity.
Now the recipient has to do the same, but in reverse. This happens very rapidly but all along the way we lose fidelity and volume, so our two brains are never and can never be perfectly in sync. But we want that and so the task is to continue to hone and hone and hone. And listen and ignore the ego and establish trust and many other things that bring us closer to the almost having a single mind.
My brain is trying to relay information/emotion/experience/? to your brain. However, since it can’t be done directly, I have to translate those contents into a medium that you can understand (e.g. reading or understanding a language). My being goes further and also leaks information/emotion/? via facial expressions, body language, tone, etc.
Both the conscious and subconscious are probably lower bandwidth than the brain plus the translation machinery isn’t full fidelity.
Now the recipient has to do the same, but in reverse. This happens very rapidly but all along the way we lose fidelity and volume, so our two brains are never and can never be perfectly in sync. But we want that and so the task is to continue to hone and hone and hone. And listen and ignore the ego and establish trust and many other things that bring us closer to the almost having a single mind.
I wonder if people know how to talk, write, speak but not communicate.
Many people and organizations transmit in UDP. We need to communicate in TCP. Get the ack. Confirm the signal was received.
Personally, If I get or take a task, I repeat the request, confirm the deadline, and document the delivery. This way when there's a conflict I can demonstrate that someone forgot or ignored or overlooked.
Many people and organizations transmit in UDP. We need to communicate in TCP. Get the ack. Confirm the signal was received.
Personally, If I get or take a task, I repeat the request, confirm the deadline, and document the delivery. This way when there's a conflict I can demonstrate that someone forgot or ignored or overlooked.
It’s more complicated though. You may receive the Ack, but it gives no information about how your message was received by the recipient.
When talking to someone in person, if you say something, before they give a formal ack, their body language already tells you a lot about how they perceived the message.
If the reception was unfavorable, you have an opportunity to immediately add more to clarify if it was perceived incorrectly.
With a formal communication system such as an API, the API itself describes what messages it wants to receive and what the meaning of those messages are. But in human communication you’re not limiting yourself to messages the recipient has completely described. You’re creating new messages. New messages which the sender expects to be received ina certain way but there’s no guarantee it will be because we don’t know if the recipient is setup to handle it as you expect.
When talking to someone in person, if you say something, before they give a formal ack, their body language already tells you a lot about how they perceived the message.
If the reception was unfavorable, you have an opportunity to immediately add more to clarify if it was perceived incorrectly.
With a formal communication system such as an API, the API itself describes what messages it wants to receive and what the meaning of those messages are. But in human communication you’re not limiting yourself to messages the recipient has completely described. You’re creating new messages. New messages which the sender expects to be received ina certain way but there’s no guarantee it will be because we don’t know if the recipient is setup to handle it as you expect.
> New messages which the sender expects to be received ina certain way but there’s no guarantee it will be because we don’t know if the recipient is setup to handle it as you expect.
I think this is one of the biggest points about communication: It requires both sides.
It doesn't matter if you have a clear and well-defined protocol for how you communicate if the other side can't, won't, or don't follow it.
It's like a web browser that only supports HTML. It may get the content your web server sends, but not the context and intent included in your CSS and JS.
And it's a lot easier to just say, "I only need the content, anyways."
I think this is one of the biggest points about communication: It requires both sides.
It doesn't matter if you have a clear and well-defined protocol for how you communicate if the other side can't, won't, or don't follow it.
It's like a web browser that only supports HTML. It may get the content your web server sends, but not the context and intent included in your CSS and JS.
And it's a lot easier to just say, "I only need the content, anyways."
// You may receive the Ack, but it gives no information about how your message was received by the recipient.
Yup. And also, what you're getting an ack to matters.
Not helpful: you say: Project X is now priority 1. I say: I think you said, project X is now top priority, right? you say: ack!
Helpful: you say: Project X is now priority 1. I say: Just to confirm - we are going to pause project Y and Z, and move Alice and Bob to X. That probably means We are going to lose Acme as a client because they are waiting for Z. I can see how this might make sense, but just wanted to double check. you say: I didn't think about Acme. No, I didn't mean that - let's rethink.
One ack gives you no new information, one enables a really good communication. If you said "Ack" in the 2nd case, that's mean a lot!
Yup. And also, what you're getting an ack to matters.
Not helpful: you say: Project X is now priority 1. I say: I think you said, project X is now top priority, right? you say: ack!
Helpful: you say: Project X is now priority 1. I say: Just to confirm - we are going to pause project Y and Z, and move Alice and Bob to X. That probably means We are going to lose Acme as a client because they are waiting for Z. I can see how this might make sense, but just wanted to double check. you say: I didn't think about Acme. No, I didn't mean that - let's rethink.
One ack gives you no new information, one enables a really good communication. If you said "Ack" in the 2nd case, that's mean a lot!
Should the response time from an API affect the payload? I would suggest that body language helps the feedback loop. Body language does not change the transmission or the content.
A manager raising their voice does not change the message. Being more confident with myself, the volume, intensity, or cadence no longer impacts me in the same way as it did before. I now look forward to those moments of calm responses to the unprofessional interactions.
A manager raising their voice does not change the message. Being more confident with myself, the volume, intensity, or cadence no longer impacts me in the same way as it did before. I now look forward to those moments of calm responses to the unprofessional interactions.
I really agree - doubly so after going independent and dealing with more non-technical counterparties.
Since my youth, I've always had a visceral, perhaps a bit maladaptive, need to be understood and have been able to parlay that into a sort of communicational hyper vigilance. The end result is that I compulsively over communicate and go out of my way to meet the receiving parties more than half way. If I can, I consider their background and reference frames and preemptively build a semantic bridge to them. Working with international teams, it's important to suppress urges for idiomatic expressions or general folkseyness, which is hard since I _LOVE_ to indulge in mixed metaphors and intentional malapropism.
The end result of emails with those constraints tends to be a wall of text, but the upside is that it tends to get copied around as a contextual 'checkpoint' of the problem under discussion.
In the end, effective communication is empathy.. And empathy can often be difficult work.
Since my youth, I've always had a visceral, perhaps a bit maladaptive, need to be understood and have been able to parlay that into a sort of communicational hyper vigilance. The end result is that I compulsively over communicate and go out of my way to meet the receiving parties more than half way. If I can, I consider their background and reference frames and preemptively build a semantic bridge to them. Working with international teams, it's important to suppress urges for idiomatic expressions or general folkseyness, which is hard since I _LOVE_ to indulge in mixed metaphors and intentional malapropism.
The end result of emails with those constraints tends to be a wall of text, but the upside is that it tends to get copied around as a contextual 'checkpoint' of the problem under discussion.
In the end, effective communication is empathy.. And empathy can often be difficult work.
I do agree effective ommunication is challenging. For async remote communication, the one thing I found that personally helps is "Be explicit, don't assume". This can sometimes mean contextualizing and more explaining but it's definitely helped in terms of managing remote communication. Another aspect is brevity, it may come off rude at first as I've heard yet I explained why I do use it so much, in many cases but especially asynchronously it pays to be concise and very specific. I hardly deal with miscommunication and being unreliable. It might be context-dependent since I'm now in a more senior/leaderhihp like role and being somewhat a middlemen between mid/junior and management this is more valuable.
One thing I noticed is that a lot of people are trying to reuse/apply contexts and context clues that would work in synchronous cases and non-remote communication cased in asynchronous cases and remote communication casess. Obviously, a lot of people aren't adjusted yet so there's some lagging indicator like this. Overcommunication is one short term negative but long term positive action I've seen work. At first it may seem detrimental but it actually helps with adapting to the person/people/subject. Eventually people adjust the scale of communication where overcommunication is not present anymore.
One thing I noticed is that a lot of people are trying to reuse/apply contexts and context clues that would work in synchronous cases and non-remote communication cased in asynchronous cases and remote communication casess. Obviously, a lot of people aren't adjusted yet so there's some lagging indicator like this. Overcommunication is one short term negative but long term positive action I've seen work. At first it may seem detrimental but it actually helps with adapting to the person/people/subject. Eventually people adjust the scale of communication where overcommunication is not present anymore.
The other day, my two and half year old asked what being "alive" meant. My wife went off on a tear about breathing and stuff which confused it even more. I explained that being alive meant that you could have more birthdays.
His eyes widened and was able to answer questions about whether the chair was alive or not. He said not because we have never celebrated a chair's birthday.
Takewaway - when communicating, you can either be technically correct or correctly understood, seldom both.
His eyes widened and was able to answer questions about whether the chair was alive or not. He said not because we have never celebrated a chair's birthday.
Takewaway - when communicating, you can either be technically correct or correctly understood, seldom both.
That’s a very engaging explanation. I’d recommend Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio as a similarly engaging way to introduce life and death early on.
Perhaps a couple more analogies would be helpful for how animals and trees can be alive too.
Perhaps a couple more analogies would be helpful for how animals and trees can be alive too.
My guy absolutely loves Pinocchio (the kid version we have for him i.e.). He has a few favorite books and Pinocchio is on that shortlist.
I know this is a ELI2 but what about that stray dog? Nobody celebrated its birthday.
Yes, this explanation didn't help him identify dogs as living.
I asked him our neighbor's dog was alive and he said no - but I blame that on my neighbors not celebrating their pet's birthdays...those monsters!
I asked him our neighbor's dog was alive and he said no - but I blame that on my neighbors not celebrating their pet's birthdays...those monsters!
Nothing stops anyone from celebrating a stray (or neighboring) dog's birthday. The difference between a dog and a chair in that context is the dog will wag its tail in an expression of happiness if given a birthday treat. The chair won't. So being able to experience happiness may be an indicator of life. Just watch some young squirrels running and jumping over each other this Spring. That's life.
The birthday explanation opens up the door to induction, too.
Well, we celebrate birthdays of dead people all the time...
This abstraction is quite leaky.
This abstraction is quite leaky.
It's funny how communication is often interpreted exclusively from the speaker's perspective... for communication to occur, someone must be listening. It is half of communication. Even though TFA stresses this, "listen" occurs only once in the comments.
Even when speaking, your listening is crucial to know if you're being understood (like an error message); and to notice the other's perspective (e.g. how they interpret terminology) so as to adjust to it. To persuade you need to hear and understand objections to counter them. To bargain you need to hear what is important to the other, to know what you have to offer in their opinion.
The smartest people I've met listen like a hawk.
Even when speaking, your listening is crucial to know if you're being understood (like an error message); and to notice the other's perspective (e.g. how they interpret terminology) so as to adjust to it. To persuade you need to hear and understand objections to counter them. To bargain you need to hear what is important to the other, to know what you have to offer in their opinion.
The smartest people I've met listen like a hawk.
> A popular post on LinkedIn discussed the most in-demand skills for 2023. It highlighted one of my favorite things in the top ten: communication.
And yet so few of the executives I've worked for have had good communication skills... or much in the way of technical, business, project management, or other skills. Mediocre in almost all ways except access to money.
And yet so few of the executives I've worked for have had good communication skills... or much in the way of technical, business, project management, or other skills. Mediocre in almost all ways except access to money.
It sounds like those executives had exceptional communication skills—they know who to spend their time on that will help them get the next promotion, and as an underling/individual contributor, you’re not it. And yet they’re executives, which means that someone else is really liking what they’re saying, otherwise they wouldn’t be in that position.
I have observed it to be more luck based, family connections, and so on. For example, founders whose spouses are executives at FAANG, founders whose parents are industry executives, people who are children of multi-millionaires, and so on.
// And yet so few of the executives I've worked for have had good communication skills.
This is very different than my experience (finance and FAANG) where the people I worked for were almost always excellent communicators able to line up hundreds or thousands of people to "row" in the same direction.
Another point of my own experience: I was always very technical, but iterating on my ability to communicate/lead has made me a thousand times more productive/ impactful.
This is very different than my experience (finance and FAANG) where the people I worked for were almost always excellent communicators able to line up hundreds or thousands of people to "row" in the same direction.
Another point of my own experience: I was always very technical, but iterating on my ability to communicate/lead has made me a thousand times more productive/ impactful.
1. Any book recommendations to improve communication skills?
2. for an experienced software developer (10+ years) transitioning to strategic roles (i.e. TL of multiple business areas)?
3. for someone looking to be less head-on and instead more diplomatic in conversation style.
2. for an experienced software developer (10+ years) transitioning to strategic roles (i.e. TL of multiple business areas)?
3. for someone looking to be less head-on and instead more diplomatic in conversation style.
Chris Voss, Never Split the Difference. It is a crash course on a negotiation from an FBI negotiator who moved to teaching business negotiation. Very pragmatic approach, no grand theories, just tools to use and how to use them.
The human memory can be really faulty. The best communication really boils down to having great documentation processes in place. The issue I see is there are always a few people with a great memory around, and instead of focusing on improving documentation processes, these people often become conduits within organizations.
Communication is a critical skill overall, maybe a critical life skill overall (definitely in some areas).
I like it rather simple and direct, usually a mismatch to many nowadays.
Jocko has some nice stories around communication, snd why it’s critical to keep it simple.
Experienced programmers often learn this lesson the very hard way. Especially now that we work mostly remotely.
Comms are a force multiplier, for better or for worse
Comms are a force multiplier, for better or for worse
Communication is a skill I have to learn, master and use.
But the majority of the gains from such a skill go to the OTHER person (or people) I am communicating with.
If another team member communicates nothing, I am the one lacking information. If I communicate everything, I am no better informed than when I started.
It's a classic tragedy of the commons.
But the majority of the gains from such a skill go to the OTHER person (or people) I am communicating with.
If another team member communicates nothing, I am the one lacking information. If I communicate everything, I am no better informed than when I started.
It's a classic tragedy of the commons.
Something I always miss in articles about the importance of communication is the lack of resources on how to improve it. That is, of course, assuming this something that can be learned if it doesn’t come naturally
Half the people I work with are barely literate and rarely ever read anything at all. Mostly gen-Xers
There is an unaddressed problem of jargon spew, florid business speech which has become pervasive at executive levels inherently destructive to goals.
Particularly in startup and scientific organizations where every dollar matters. Persons who appear productive by volunteering for basic tasks which should be done by an administrative assistant. Productivity by empty volume not relevance or need. Passing on or delegating even basic technical tasks, advocating against fundamental safeguards simply because they do not want to deal with them.
I am not against learning as you go and this is not what i am referring to. These executives and managers are not ones who just have gaps, they are ones that don’t know and refuse to learn even basic concepts well known by high school students or college freshmen. Concepts which would take less than a minute to look up and understand.
They micromanage, take credit for work they have not done, and ultimately will cause your best talent to leave.
This article and those like them self-help fluff. We need to get back to our roots, allowing the fluff of executive culture to pervade instead of fostering creative tinkering has set us so far back. When did handicapping ourselves become the norm?