It sucks to be misunderstood.

This week I had coffee with a friend who shared a story about a work situation that went horribly wrong.

Her colleague had worked for weeks on an article.

It was well researched and well written, listing “Ten Insights for Greater Success” (in that industry).  Her audience knew it was a working draft.

Eleven points were made in the article she circulated for feedback.

At the review meeting, her boss tore shreds off her in front of the team, citing the obvious oversight of too many points. She retreated in humiliation, discouraged and demoralised.  Has that ever happened to you?

Apart from the obvious fact that this is unacceptable behaviour and creates an environment that is not psychologically safe, there are some industries where this conduct still occurs. It’s typically in cultures where people use “pressure” and “tight deadlines” as justification for coarse treatment.

The observation I would make from a communications perspective though, is that the whole fiasco might have been avoided if the writer placed as much importance on context as content.

For example, when a ham sandwich is wrapped in wax paper it is “lunch.”

When thrown in the bin, it is “rubbish.”

Same content or sandwich.

Different context or container.

If the sender had contextualised the article before circulating for feedback ie. “I know there are eleven points, I’d appreciate your thoughts on whether to include point ten or point eleven,” the response might have been quite different.

How might you consider context to ensure your message lands more accurately this week?