Moving Away from Fuzzy Communication and the Problems it Creates

Steven L. Blue, CEO of Miller Ingenuity and author of five books

Nearly all professional success depends on the ability to communicate and elicit the cooperation of executives, colleagues, employees and clients.

Yet leaders and employees at high levels don’t always communicate at this level of competence or excellence because, one expert says, they are not provided a blueprint of how to specifically do so early on in their career.

The result: fuzzy communicators.

Steven L. Blue, CEO of Miller Ingenuity and a speaker and business transformation professional, describes what this type of communication looks like in practice:

• When a message is massaged, downplayed or otherwise “softened” to make it more palatable up or down the chain of command

• When an important piece of information is not passed along in a clear, understandable way

• When employees up and down the chain of command make assumptions without verifying

• When employees convey messages with more of an interest in protecting themselves or satisfying their managers or team leaders instead of making the best decision for the company

“Communication that is not clear, crisp, and purposeful,” is how Blue summarizes the ineffectiveness that he’s experienced and sees that troubles him. “Communication that is done in the least efficient and effective way, that is by email instead of face to face. In practice, this is usually seen in endless email strings that go on and on.”

While anyone can end up communicating in this manner, Blue says there are some people who are much more likely to choose fuzzy communication, “the most susceptible tend to be incompetent people trying to cover their butts. It can also be used by people who are not comfortable with conflict, so email strings are a safer way to communicate.”

That approach, he strongly contends, brings about clear and significant issues and risks.

“Wars have been started by one side misunderstanding the other because of fuzzy communication,” Blue says. “By some estimates, as much as 90% of conflict results from misunderstandings — read: fuzzy communications.”

He provides one well-known historical example.

“The NASA Challenger disaster,” Blue says, “was entirely because of fuzzy communications up and down the chain.”

Clearer communication prevents and solves a multitude of problems.

“Fewer conflicts,” Blue immediately states as one attractive benefit, explaining, “When people are clear and crisp in communicating with each other, they can productively deal with real conflicts instead of stressing over perceived, but not real conflicts.”

In addition, there is greater productivity.

“Higher performance,” Blue states, explaining “When the organization isn’t ‘chasing its tail’ over fuzzy communication it has the capacity to improve the bottom line.”  

Getting from fuzzy to clear should consistently be the goal and Blue describes the pathway to get to that helpful practice.

“Here is an example: I have a joint venture in Brazil. My counterpart in the venture speaks broken English and I speak very little Portuguese. Whenever we communicate, we have adopted a practice of repeating what the other said to be sure we understand each other perfectly,” he says.

“The emphasis is on perfectly, not generally.”

As for email as a method, Blue is consistent in his message about, seeing it as not only suboptimal but a flawed alternative to interaction.

“If you want to go from fuzzy to clear, you can start by setting strict rules on email communication,” he stresses.

Blue offers guidance that has worked well in his career yet may not be considered practical for everyone — or well received.

“Such rules could include, no emails to anyone in the same building. No emails when face to face is possible. No emails longer than one sent and one reply, etc.,” he says.

“You get the point. Emails are the enemy of clear communication.”