Words in any language are meant to communicate meaning. Communication, in itself, is full of processes which can derail the intended communication. Words which are spoken or written by one person become distorted and filtered by the receiver. The filters the communication receiver uses are based on elements such as their upbringing, their mood and the sender’s body language.
However, when the words that the sender uses have become so overused in the vernacular that they assume the role of a label or a brand, the problems in communication multiply ten fold or more.
A brand is in the eye of the beholder. Proof of this is in the following short test. Ask a person what is in a box labelled with three letters from the alphabet, for example, “XYZ”. There is general confusion as the only answers are something related to size. Ask the same person what is in a box with three other letters, this time “IBM” and the answers are much more specific. Ninety percent of people will have a specific view.
Ask a group of people individually whether the product is good quality or good value and there will be a range of answers. The answers will depend on their interaction with IBM’s advertising and corporate presence and experience of IBM products and services. Some will rate the product highly and some lowly.
The more abstract the word, the more it is likely to become a label.
Objects are usually safe. A chair, a table, a TV, a car, all to a reasonable degree, carry an obvious meaning without too much explanation unless the people communicating are speaking of a specific type of object within a class of objects.
Events are less safe. A concert, a seminar, a party, can have distinctly different meanings. For example a child’s birthday party, a Christmas party, a retirement party.
Collections of objects are even less safe. Educators, bosses, employees can be used to describe very different people. Educators could be kindergarten teachers or university lecturers or independent training providers.
Value judgements are the least safe. Simple words like tall, small, high, cold have very different values in people’s minds. What is cold to someone brought up in Suva is not cold to someone brought up in London.
Words in general use in the community and in “business”, both in public and private enterprise can also become labels or brands with a debilitating effect on communication.
The business world is full of words which require a value judgement or are words requiring definition to have any hope of being communicated effectively. That is before considering what filters and distortions the recipient may consciously, or more likely unconsciously, use.
Best practise is an example. Unless the industry is defined, the processes defined and the variables being measured are defined, it is an abstract phrase with a general meaning of ranking some aspects of an organisation against a certain but yet undefined group of peers. Sometimes it also means the development and execution of action plans to improve the ranking of the organisation against its peers for the defined criteria for the defined processes.
Continuous improvement is another example related closely to best practise, with the difference being that action plans are developed to improve internal process performance to a level better than an organisation has done before.
A third example is “Empowerment“. Without definition of what processes people are being empowered to carry out, without reference and consideration of what authority levels are required and what competency is required, empowerment remains ill defined. At best, it is a soft and fuzzy version of what is a sensible business practice to reduce costs.
The impact of words becoming labels is that two business people can have an hour long conversation without any substance being discussed. A conversation about training needs analysis without reference to what processes people have to carry out, the competency required to carry out the processes, the means to evaluate the current competency of staff and a view of how staff may improve their competency is a discussion about words with no substance.
Further to this, a group of people could have discussion with no substance. This is most unfortunate when the group of people are charged with developing strategy.
When strategy is dominated by words used as labels rather than having the detailed substance behind them understood and shared, the strategy becomes a house of cards.
Senior executives who developed the strategy will each have a different view of what the strategy is and middle management charged with executing the strategy will have no chance of success.
When words become labels in business, strategy is replaced by individual activity as individuals try hard to put their interpretation on the nebulous direction of senior management.
Kevin Dwyer is Director of Change Factory. Change Factory helps organisations who do do not like their business outcomes to get better outcomes by changing people’s behaviour. Businesses we help have greater clarity of purpose and ability to achieve their desired business outcomes. To learn more visit http://www.changefactory.com.au or email kevin.dwyer@changefactory.com.au
To see more articles visit http://www.changefactory.com.au
Tags: change, change management, communication, management, strategy
