Complaints in the workplace about insufficient or inadequate communication are common, yet that very word "communication" is subject to multiple interpretations.
Here's an example of what I mean: A director had a survey conducted to determine the cause of his employees' low morale. One of the key findings was their desire for more communication. Eager to put things right, the director began circulating more reports and email than ever. And as a voracious reader, he started to extract articles from his many periodicals and circulate them to everyone.
Morale, however, did not rise. It may even have dropped a notch.
Why? Because what many of the director's employees meant by wanting "more communication" was that they wanted him to wander by more often and ask how things were going. They wanted to feel that he appreciated how hard they were working. They wanted to hear from him not just when they'd made mistakes or fallen short, but also when they they'd done things right. They wanted, basically, to know that he knew they existed and were doing the best they could under difficult circumstances.
What they really wanted was some attention and recognition. Yet, savvy though he was, the director never thought to question either their interpretation of "communication" or his own, so he couldn't understand why his good intentions changed nothing.
Can you think of words or concepts in your own workplace that could have different meanings to others than they do to you? Some such differences are of minimal consequence; others, as this example illustrates, make all the difference.
Lets Hang!