Said doesn’t mean heard

Doubt doesn’t always mean doubt. Why women play down their confidence and men play down their doubt…

Strategies for sharpening verbal dexterity in teamwork.

Said doesn't mean heard

This is the second of four articles in the series on spoken communication in teamwork. When we work together, most of our communication happens out loud. The articles focus especially on how you minimise missing, wrong, misinterpreted and misunderstood communication in busy moments. Many of the tools are drawn from experience in aircraft cockpits and operating theatres, and are about how you overcome the classic barriers in spoken communication:

Meant doesn’t mean said

said doesn’t mean heard

heard doesn’t mean understood

understood doesn’t mean done

You know it from work, and you’ve probably tried it at home too. You drop a hint the size of a billboard, and still he doesn’t get it. Your unmistakable nudge doesn’t land, and now you’re about to boil over with frustration. Speaking plainly is no given. Slips in our spoken communication are the biggest cause of mistakes in teamwork. Here you’ll get insight into — and tools for — making sure said also gets heard.

Why it matters to everyone

However flat the organisation you work in, every group has a hierarchy. A hierarchy matters because it gives structure, but it also creates challenges. People with less status and power will often speak indirectly and drop more hints — and so be more ambiguous in what they say — than people higher up the hierarchy. The problem becomes especially clear when you’re in a stressful situation that calls for decisive action. Because it’s only natural that we’d rather listen to those who speak firmly and confidently than to those who doubt and hesitate. Doubt can be perfectly justified, though. If we never listened to our doubt, things would go badly wrong. We’d make the same mistakes over and over with greater confidence. In this article I use examples from aviation and hospitals, where the hierarchical gap between captain and pilot, and between consultant and nurse, is obvious. Just because the gap may be less obvious where you are, the same dynamic still applies. Even though the gap between high and low is less visible in your team, this topic is still relevant to you. Because it’s the same dynamic at play in all groups. It turns out the difference in the way we communicate can be traced all the way back to how we’re socialised as girls and boys. If you don’t talk about how you get heard, all the evidence shows you’ll make mistakes — lots of mistakes.

People with less status and power will often speak indirectly and drop more hints — and so be more ambiguous in what they say — than people higher up the hierarchy.

The lessons from Korean Air

In aviation, the problem that a co-pilot isn’t always heard by the captain has been known for a long time. In the 1990s, Korean Air had 17 times as many crashes as the rest of the industry — and it was neither because of inexperienced crew nor poor equipment (M. Gladwell, 2008). Today Korean Air is one of the safest airlines in the world, but only because it realised it was the hierarchy between the co-pilot and the captain that was causing the problems with their communication. Out of respect for the captain, the co-pilot often softened his language. That meant that when the co-pilot spotted a mistake, he didn’t put it into words clearly enough. Instead he spoke indirectly, politely and tentatively. The co-pilot’s ambiguity meant the captain didn’t listen to his comments — which was the main cause of Korean Air’s many crashes in the 90s.

Why and how we soften our language

Because spoken communication is so important to our teamwork, pilots learn that there are different levels between indirect and direct spoken communication (EJ. Dunn, 2008). If you want to be very indirect, you drop a hint: “Should it look like that?” You can also choose to be a little more direct by stating your preference: “I think it would be wise if…” If you make a query, the other person gets a slightly clearer impression that you think you should do something: “What do you think we should do?” You can put forward a shared suggestion: “You and I could also…” You can be more direct still by making a statement: “We need to do the following…” And finally, you can spell it right out and give a direct command: “Do this now!”

Today Korean Air is one of the safest airlines in the world, but only because it realised it was the hierarchy between the co-pilot and the captain that was causing the problems with their communication.

When we choose to drop a hint rather than give a command, it’s because we want to show politeness and respect towards the person we’re talking to. We also soften our language when we’re speaking about something we’re unsure of, or when we have to explain something we’ve done that we found embarrassing. When a co-pilot softens his language to signal that he’s in doubt, it’s natural for the captain not to take the co-pilot’s suggestion into consideration. The challenge is that we’re naturally reluctant to question people with great authority. But a doubt or a hunch can be perfectly well founded. If we didn’t listen to our doubt at all, it would be disastrous for our judgement. We’d make the same mistakes over and over with greater confidence.

The same picture in Danish hospitals

In 2010, researchers studied mistakes in spoken communication at five Danish hospitals. They reviewed 84 cases of serious so-called adverse events. According to the Danish patient safety body, an adverse event is an error that isn’t caused by the patient’s illness — an error that has caused, or could have caused, harm to the patient. The researchers found that in 25% of the cases there were mistakes in the spoken communication between junior and senior staff (L. Rabøl, 2010). Mistakes in communication were defined as missing, wrong, misinterpreted or misunderstood spoken communication between staff at different levels. The point is that mistakes in communication across hierarchies happen often, and can have serious consequences.

When you look at why nurses choose to leave their profession, more than 30 years of research shows it happens for two reasons. One is that they have a sense of not being heard and valued. The other is that they have a sense of not being able to influence the quality of the patient’s care (M. Chiarella, 2008). So listening to a colleague’s doubt is about more than just flight and patient safety. It’s about the fact that we don’t feel valued — which both creates mistakes and can make us decide to find another job altogether.

The researchers found that in 25% of the cases there were mistakes in the spoken communication between junior and senior staff.

Doubt doesn’t always mean doubt

If you’re in a situation with two colleagues, one of whom is doubtful and the other who seems confident, it’s natural to listen most to the confident one — especially if it’s a firefighting task that calls for action. But doubt doesn’t always have to be a sign of uncertainty. It may also be that your colleague doesn’t want to come across as boastful, and so chooses to seem doubtful and speak indirectly.

Women tend to play down their confidence, while men are more inclined to play down their doubt. The psychologist Laurie Heatherington found this when she ran an experiment in which she asked students about to start university to predict their first-year grades (L. Heatherington, 1993). Some were asked to keep their predictions to themselves by writing them down and putting them in an envelope. Others were asked to tell their predictions to other people. The results showed that more women than men predicted lower grades for themselves when they shared their predictions with others. When the predictions were kept private, they were the same for women and men, and in line with their actual abilities. This behaviour comes from the socialisation of boys and girls through play in childhood (S. Andersen, 2013). A socialisation we often carry into the workplace — which naturally creates challenges in teamwork.

Women tend to play down their confidence, while men are more inclined to play down their doubt.

Why a female colleague plays down her confidence
When girls play, they tend to do it with their best friend or in small groups. They spend a lot of time talking, and they use language to get close to each other. For example, the girl you tell your secrets to becomes your best friend. Girls learn to play down that they’re better than the others, and to stress that they’re all the same. From an early age, most girls learn that being too sure of themselves will make them unpopular with their peers. A group of girls would freeze out a girl who asserted herself over the others. They’d criticise her by saying: “She thinks she’s something special.” When that pattern is carried into a workplace, you can see a female colleague who, rather than telling others what to do, drops hints, speaks indirectly and shows doubt — because she doesn’t want to come across as “bossy” (A. Fragale, 2011).

Why a male colleague often plays down his doubt
Boys’ play is very different. They usually get involved in larger groups, so more can join in. Unlike girls’ play, not all boys are treated as equals. Those with high status are expected to stress their status, and are seen as leaders. Boys won’t usually accuse each other of “bossing people around”, because boys with lower status expect to be told by the leader what to do. Boys learn to use language to negotiate their status in the group. They do it by showing what they can do and what they know, by challenging others, and by resisting other people’s challenges. One way boys become leaders is by giving orders. Another is by telling stories or jokes. So you can see a male colleague being less inclined to ask for help and advice. From an early age, they’re socialised to be aware that their competence is judged by the questions they ask. Instead, a male colleague will value the independence of solving the problem himself, because he’s more conscious that there’s a risk of losing face (A. Fragale, 2011).

Not all children grow up in these patterns, and not all boys and girls feel comfortable in these groups. But for most, it’s within these groups that boys and girls learn how to get by. So most children grow up in two different worlds — something you should be aware of in a work context.

So you can see a male colleague being less inclined to ask for help and advice. From an early age, they’re socialised to be aware that their competence is judged by the questions they ask.

Assertive communication is the balance between aggression and the tyranny of niceness

In stressful situations, some people use aggression to be heard. Coming across as firm — that is, assertive — in your speech is not the same as being aggressive. One is about self-respect and about expressing your valid view. The other is about disrespect for other people, and denying them the chance to express their views. The problem with using aggression to be heard is that it quickly shifts the focus from what’s best for the matter at hand to who’s right.

In operating theatres, researchers have found that when a doctor speaks harshly to a junior colleague, the colleague typically reacts in one of two ways. Either he withdraws, or he starts speaking to others the way the senior spoke to him (L. Lingard, 2002). Both reactions are a problem. When he withdraws, it means he no longer speaks up with his observations. If instead he uses the same harsh tone with his other colleagues, he’s helping to pass aggression on to the next generation of colleagues. That’s why swapping out a couple of members often doesn’t change a team’s behaviour. It takes a shared decision from everyone.

Conversely, it’s also important not to try to say everything with niceness and a sweet smile (M. Chiarella, 2008). Use the level of direct speech that’s needed. When you focus on the matter at hand, you’ll find it isn’t about you — it’s about your customer, client or patient. Sometimes a hint is enough for your concern to be heard and considered. Other times you need to go up a level and make a statement.

How to make your language more assertive
Both aviation and hospitals recognised long ago that when we’re in a stressful situation, politeness is poison for teamwork. Maybe your team is ready to reach the same conclusion? If so, here’s a powerful tool you can use to be heard when things come to a head. The tool is meant to standardise spoken communication — for example, when a nurse needs to make sure she’s heard by a consultant (K. Curtis, 2011). The idea is that you start at level one and work your way up until your concern has been heard:.

Level 1: Express your initial concern with an “I”: “I’m worried about…”
Level 2: Ask a question or suggest a solution: “Would you like me to…”
Level 3: Ask for an explanation: “It would help me understand if you…”
Level 4: Challenge and demand an answer: “You need to listen to me now…”

Remember, clear communication between staff at different levels is about knowing what you have a duty and a right to say. In healthcare it’s about ethics and morality when it comes to patient safety. In your team, it may be about following the routines that make sure your customer gets their delivery on time and on budget.

Both aviation and hospitals recognised long ago that when we’re in a stressful situation, politeness is poison for teamwork.

“That’s probably not a problem here”

As I mentioned at the start, members of every group have different status and power. The nuances may be small, but there will be a difference. That’s why this topic is relevant to every team, however flat your organisation may be. It’s important to acknowledge that raising the topic can feel like crossing a line if you’re further down the hierarchy.

My experience from other teams is that you should think about standardising your spoken communication in stressful situations the same way we normally think about standardising written communication. Contracts, forms and letters to customers and suppliers are usually standardised. They are, because we can’t be bothered to spend time reinventing the wheel every time we need to, say, hire or let go of an employee. The argument for standardising your spoken communication in stressful situations is the same: it’s about ensuring efficiency and minimising mistakes. About creating a more equal balance of power in your communication.