Significance Messages

When we must communicate to others something very important, getting it right matters more than usual. Paradoxically, in those situations, we're at elevated risk of not getting it right. We dance around the points we most need to make. We find it difficult or scary to say what we really think. Instead, we lead our listeners close to the points we most need to make, and leave it to them to make the rest of the journey on their own. We give our listeners the information from which they might possibly deduce a significant message, but we don't articulate that message ourselves.

The significance of a set of facts is the way those facts relate to their consequences. The more complex and technical is the subject matter, the more important it is to be explicit about the significance of the information we're providing. I use the term significance messages to denote communications for which clearly stating the significance of their factual content is as important as clearly stating that factual content. Too often, we communicate facts, but we don't actually communicate the significance of what we're saying.

For significance messages, that is a recipe for communication disaster.

An example of a significance message

Project Marigold has encountered yet another setback. Its target date has been delayed twice already, and the project manager is preparing a report to the Executive Committee announcing a new, delayed, target date. The project manager has written a statement that makes the main point:

Version 1: Marigold's completion date needs to be delayed until Q2, due to changes in project objectives. Last month, for example, we reduced Marigold's budget by 15%. That change required that we reconfigure the PineTree Module, and the consultants we need for that work aren't available until next month.

This is a simple message, but it doesn't emphasize the fundamental point that project objectives have changed repeatedly. Here's a version that illustrates the importance of focusing on significance.

Version 2: Because we keep changing Project Marigold's objectives, we must expect impact on its completion date. The latest change, a 15% budget reduction, requires a delay until Q2, because we must reconfigure the PineTree Module. The consultants we need for that work aren't available until next month.

Both versions Too often, we communicate facts,
but we don't explicitly communicate
the significance of what we're sayingprovide facts justifying the delays in Project Marigold. But Version 1 emphasizes the reasons for this particular delay. Version 2 emphasizes that there is a pattern of unstable project objectives that accounts for the series of delays. Version 2 also implies that unless Marigold's objectives stabilize, there will likely be more delays.

Last words

There's a simple test you can use to determine whether your communication has given sufficient emphasis to the significance of the facts you've provided. Read the text and ask the question, "So what?" If the answer to that question includes material not contained in your communication, then the significance of the data probably isn't well enough represented.  Top    Next Issue

Do you spend your days scurrying from meeting to meeting? Do you ever wonder if all these meetings are really necessary? (They aren't) Or whether there isn't some better way to get this work done? (There is) Read 101 Tips for Effective Meetings to learn how to make meetings much more productive and less stressful — and a lot more rare. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Effective Communication at Work:

Interviewing the Willing: Strategy

At times, we need information from each other. For example, we want to learn about how someone approached a similar problem, or we must interview someone about system requirements. Yet, even when the source is willing, we sometimes fail to expose critical facts. How can we elicit information from the willing more effectively?

Embolalia and Stuff Like That: I

When we address others, we sometimes use filler — so-called automatic speech or embolalia — without thinking. Examples are "uh," "um," and "er," but there are more complex forms, too. Embolalia are usually harmless, if mildly annoying to some. But sometimes they can be damaging.

Chronic Peer Interrupters: III

People who habitually interrupt others in meetings must be fairly common, because I'm often asked about what to do about them. And you can find lots of tips on the Web, too. Some tips work well, some generally don't. Here are my thoughts about four more.

Unintended Condescension: I

Condescending remarks can deflect almost any conversation into destructive directions. The lost productivity is especially painful when the condescension is unintended. Here are two examples of remarks that others might hear as condescension, but which often aren't intended as such.

Six Traps in Email or Text: II

Collaboration requires communication. For many, communicating often takes place in email and text message systems. But much of the effort expended in communication is dedicated to resolving confusions that we created for ourselves. Here are four examples.

See also Effective Communication at Work and Effective Communication at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming January 22: Storming: Obstacle or Pathway?

The Storming stage of Tuckman's model of small group development is widely misunderstood. Fighting the storms, denying they exist, or bypassing them doesn't work. Letting them blow themselves out in a somewhat-controlled manner is the path to Norming and Performing. Available here and by RSS on January 22.

And on January 29: A Framework for Safe Storming

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration. Available here and by RSS on January 29.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info