Misses

When a lack of ___ results in poor communication

[working title]

Examples that result in confusion

• Lack of exploring the problem: A solution is presented before outlining its motivation (aka the impetus for the solution; aka the actual problem).

• Lack of shared language: An explanation is given with language that is easy to misinterpret or requires too much processing.
  • e.g., "Existential data" is a very short phrase, but its brevity confuses the uninitiated.
  • e.g., "System agents help manage and provision resources"
    --What "system"? What "resources"? What's the difference between management and provisioning?

Examples that result in wasted time

• Lack of addressing arguments: A debate devolves into repeating the same arguments over and over.
  • Lack of direct counter-arguments.
  • Lack of acknowledging legitimacy of opposing arguments.
  • Lack of systematic approach to evaluating options.

• Lack of directness: An answer starts with an explanation before a thesis or stance.
  • e.g., Answering a yes/no question with an explanation before saying yes or no.

Misfires

When impatience or presumption results in poor communication

[working title]

Examples that result in a toxic environment

• Presuming the speaker is already wrong: Not giving the speaker the benefit of the doubt when listening.
  • e.g., Rejecting (even if just via body language) a bold thesis before letting the speaker follow-up with supporting arguments.
     
• Being too quick to contribute: Prioritizing replying over understanding when listening to a claim or question.
  • e.g., Focusing on low-hanging fruit when a meeting is trying to discuss a bigger picture.
  • e.g., Interruptions; Listener answers a question before inquisitor finishes asking just because the listener thinks he/she can predict the full question.

Miscellaneous

Additional Guidance

Concision, Cohesion, Clarity

There are 2 parts for improving any communication:

1. Concision
2. Cohesion

It's obvious to most people when a message lacks concision or cohesion. How do you tell when a message has too much?

If clarity decreases as a message gets more concise, then it's too concise.

If a message becomes too opaque after bringing in lots of contextual information, then there's too much cohesion.

These 2 are adjusted for the sake of CLARITY

Golden Rule(s)

1. Lack of agreement should result in increased curiosity
   rather than increased frustration.
   At least for initial stages of a discussion: (1) both "sides" should seek to fully understand the perspective of the other, (2) come to a mutual understanding of the problem before addressing disagreements on solutions, etc.
    
2. No problem should be treated as a lost cause without considering communication-related improvements.
   And no communication-related problem should be immediately chalked up to personality quirks (aka "old dog can learn new tricks and must do so for sake of the team").
    
3. Seek agreement on assumptions before applying them.