July 6, 2008 — How often have you left a meeting unclear about exactly what has been decided or what it means for you? If your answer is “never,” you haven’t attended many meetings. There may be a place for ambiguity, but it certainly is not in organizational life. There is a simple and almost universally applicable rule: Clarity is good and ambiguity is bad. Like uncertainty, ambiguity has multiple sources and produces a variety of bad outcomes. These sources include:
– Conflict avoidance: When people try to avoid conflict, ambiguity is a natural outcome. A couple of examples. Let’s not cause trouble by asking him what he really meant. Or we disagree with what she said, but let’s let it slide, with the result that people walk out without any clarity on what comes next. Conflict is essential to arriving at clear and effective decisions, and conflict avoidance produces ambiguity.
– Consensus based decision-making: Trying to achieve consensus – rather than shared commitment – is also a source of ambiguity. By voicing opposition, a single person can prevent a clear decision from being articulated, even though every one else in the room supports that decision. Consensus-driven groups foster ambiguity and inaction.
– Lack of focus: Unfocussed leaders and managers, those without a clear direction in mind, also produce ambiguity. If you do not have a clear vision, it is not possible to communicate clearly with others.
– Fatigue: Organizations that are tired are also typically ambiguous and stuck. In these places, a lack of clarity is part of the culture. It is reflected in norms and behaviors that say nothing is going to happen here.
– Unclear language: People use language that is non-prescriptive and subject to multiple meanings. An example: The CEO of an organization would regularly tell one of the top managers to “take the lead” on some matter or project. It was never clear what “take the lead” meant, and the results – or non-results – were predictable.
Ambiguity within an organization leads to unhealthy and unresolved conflicts and an inability to execute strategies or implement basic changes. There are a couple of simple rules for achieving clarity and eliminating destructive ambiguity.
First, use meetings effectively. Meetings should end with agreement by everyone on what has been decided and who will do what. This is also a good test of commitment. While I may not agree completely with this decision, I have had my chance to be heard, and now I have to commit to supporting that decision.
Second, there is a need to eliminate ambiguity in the communication of what has been decided. We now know that the best – maybe the only – effective way of communicating changes is face-to-face by front line supervisors. Technology is not your best friend in this area. Nor are pronouncements from the top leader. Clarity also comes from over-communicating in the most effective ways. Use a communication checklist as a tool. Such a tool makes certain that: everyone understands the decision or action; we have all of the right people in the room; the language is clear, the timing is set and everyone’s role in communicating and following up on this decision is understood
Clarifying decisions and then clearly communicating them are approaches that will produce big, measurable improvements in any organization plagued by ambiguity.
Next Week: Mistrust
Editor's note: Frank Schneiger is the president of Human Services Management Institute, a management consulting firm that focuses on organizational change. Much of his current work is in the area of problems of execution and implementing rapid changes as responses to operational problems.
