Alongside a picture of a freshly caught trout is this anonymous quote: “You never see a fish on the wall with its’ mouth shut!” Tough luck for the trout, but they’re not the only ones to make that mistake. We humans will make them too—whenever we open our mouths!
Whether you’re “fishing” for a job or already on board as a crewmember, communication can make or break your success. To reduce the likelihood of getting “hooked,” here some common mistakes and how to avoid them.
Failing to ask, “Is this a good time to talk?”
This is a mistake job seekers make frequently in the job search process. But consider this: You know what it’s like when you answer the phone and a voice on the other end launches right into their story or agenda, assuming you have all the time in the world to listen. They never ask if you have a moment to spare or whether they should call back at a more convenient time. This places the burden on you to interrupt and say you were in the middle of something, on your way out the door, or up against a pressing deadline.
They might justifiably ask, “Why would someone answer the phone if they were busy? Wouldn’t they just let it roll into voicemail?” There are sound reasons why people will answer even if they are in the middle of something or on their way out the door. Perhaps they are waiting for an important call from their boss. Maybe they were expecting some important data to help complete a report. Or their airline might have a customer service policy that requires each call be answered in person within three rings. It could be as simple as the fact we’ve been conditioned as a society to pick up the phone when it rings and it’s a hard habit to break.
However, it’s not placing the call that’s the problem—it’s not understanding that the call is an interruption. It’s as much of an interruption as walking into someone’s office while they are in the middle of a meeting. We would never assume that physically entering that space gives us the right to monopolize it, so why do some folks assume they can do it verbally?
Failing to ask how much communication people prefer.
This person assumes that what works for you should work for everyone else.
Just because you don’t need frequent communication, doesn’t mean that others feel the same. Professional or personal preferences can hinge on a number of factors, including operational demands, threat-risk, a captain’s mood or sick kids. Ask yourself these questions:
- Did all the instructors at flight school give constructive feedback the same way?
- Does your spouse or significant other want to hear from you just as often when you’re working in town as when you’re on a trip?
- How often did your parents expect you to check in with them when you were 16 versus now that you’re 35 or 45? (Okay, maybe we should skip that question!)
Being clear about how often and to what degree you should communicate with others can differentiate you as a professional individual. A high-strung individual in an authority position may require much more contact than someone with a more relaxed, informal style. Similarly, a new crewmember may benefit from frequent assurances and periodically “checking in,” whereas an experienced person may not need this level of support.
Failing to ask how people prefer to communicate.
Occasionally, people prefer written communication because they have a hard time keeping track of so much verbal information. They may be more effective with a written record for tracking and scheduling or it’s their preferred method because so much rests on being accurate. For others, written contact is often a medical necessity due to closed head injuries, auditory processing issues, attention deficit disorder or the impact chronic stress has on short-term memory.
Smart crewmembers find out how their managers and co-workers prefer to communicate because they increase the likelihood their message will be received in a way it can be “heard,” understood and applied.
Failing to prioritize emergencies on a scale from 1-10.
Not every crisis “weighs” the same, and unless we quantify the size and scope of the problem, it’s one more communication hurdle to overcome when we need to enlist help or move people to action. How much better to say, “I’ve got an emergency brewing that’s a 9.5 on my Richter Scale” than use the understatement, “Houston, we’ve got a problem.” People need an instantaneous assessment of how bad it is in order to decide
- Do I drop what I’m doing to focus on your problem?
- Are lives on the line or is this just a minor issue?
- How does your ‘emergency’ rank with the five other fires I’m presently fighting?
In this way, you capture their immediate attention when warranted and avoid a reputation as one who “cries wolf” when it’s not. Those in leadership positions learn quite quickly who tends to cry wolf and who doesn’t.
Failing to open the floor to ideas.
If you aspire to be in a position of leadership, take note: When we insist that people come with a solution in addition to the problem, it can prevent those with valid concerns from ever voicing them. While it may indeed discourage habitual whiners and complainers, it will also squelch communication overall.
It’s better to ask folks to offer “ideas” rather than “solutions.” The word “solutions” implies they have the ability to find an answer if they would just try a little harder. Let’s face it, if they had the ability to find the answer in the first place, either they wouldn’t need you or only the lazy ones would come running for help!
Leaders often have a wider “field of vision” since they are privy to more information, have access to more resources, and have permission and authority that others do not. Also, they often have not done the preliminary work necessary to establish a true “open door” communication culture. It’s a pretty big jump to assume people can get to solution without first creating an environment that rewards speaking up, taking risks, raising unpopular issues and stepping outside the lines now and then to get to the answers. By requiring solutions as a pre-requisite to even raise an issue, question or concern, you effectively block out the healthy and crucial exchange of information that drives successful teams.
Failing to distinguish between acknowledgement, understanding and agreement.
Parents of teenagers know this: just because they nod their heads and mumble “yeah” doesn’t mean they understand and it certainly doesn’t mean they always agree! This is one of the most subtle of our top 10 communications mistakes people make because it’s easy to tell, yet it’s tough to determine comprehension or agreement. “Yes” can mean a wide range of things, including:
- I heard you the first time
- I understand what you said
- I understand what you meant
- I agree with you
- I don’t agree but plan to humor you
- I will do what you ask
To know exactly what you’re dealing with may require some investigative work, regardless of whether you’re talking to your teenager, co-pilot, or union steward. Probing questions like, “What do you make of what I just said?” or “How would you interpret what I just said?” may be good ways to check for comprehension. In many cases, it’s not necessary that they agree with you, but they must definitely understand you!
Failing to debrief both failure and success.
Success can be a relative term. The goal or objective might have been met, but maybe just barely! Just because something was successful does not mean it would be a waste of time to clarify what worked, what didn’t and what could be done better next time around. Perhaps the overall process or project was a success, but there were some “loose ends” that could spell disaster under different conditions.
Debrief, post-mortem and gap-analysis are all terms used to describe analyzing outcomes for quality improvement. The “C.A.R.L.A. Concept™” is a 5-step method that’s easy to remember and will facilitate a streamlined analysis process:
C = circumstances faced
A = actions taken
R = results achieved (quantified as much as possible)
L = lesson(s) learned
A = alternative approach(es)
Those who stop at “good enough” are selling themselves and their solution skills quite short. Despite initial success, there’s great value in digging down deep to explore “what if” scenarios that could lead to important discoveries for the future.
Failing to recognize that silence doesn’t always equal satisfaction
The common assumption is that people must be happy if they aren’t complaining. Yet customer service statistics show that only 4 percent of dissatisfied customers will ever say why they won’t do business with a company in the future.
Whether you’re a new hire or you aspire to be the chief pilot, it’s a mistake to think that only the squeaky wheels are unhappy. While aircrew satisfaction statistics can fluctuate depending on the latest round of contract negotiations, concessions or furlough lists, there’s often a subsurface simmering with dissatisfaction that can be addressed before all hell breaks loose. Flight training school faculty, aircrew, office staff and maintenance workers might just be satisfied enough to show up for work and complete their list of essential duties, yet dissatisfied enough to take the edge off focus, motivation, and performance. Attitude and interpersonal skills may suffer long before anyone ever opens their mouth to complain.
If you are in a leadership position, take informal polls to find out if something’s brewing just below the surface. Ask colleagues to rank satisfaction levels on a scale from 1 to 10. In “First, Break All the Rules” by Curt Coffman and Marcus Buckingham there is a good list of job satisfaction interview questions. An overly simple method is to use refrigerator magnets that illustrate 30 cartoon faces, which each express a different emotion (exhausted, confused, enraged, anxious, shocked). A moveable frame lets you select the emotion that best represents present state of mind. Certainly, if someone selected “depressed” or “enraged” it would be reason enough to follow up to see what’s amiss.
Failing to “profile” people.
The word “profiling” has a negative connotation. People don’t like to be put in boxes, second-guessed, or restricted based on someone else’s judgment. People don’t like to be stereotyped or discriminated against because it’s unfair and flies in the face of a society with charitable values.
However, profiling can be a positive thing when it helps us communicate more effectively with others. There are a wide variety of instruments and assessments that organizations use to help increase understanding. It’s not necessary to go through a battery of tests in order to figure out whether a person is task-driven or relationship-driven. You need not conduct a 6-month study to determine who prefers data to make decisions and who would rather “go with their gut”.
It makes sense that if you work with a person who needs extra time to research and analyze, you try to respect those needs as much as possible and adapt. Too often, we criticize their style because it’s not just like ours and then interpret their hesitance to do it our way as a personal vendetta. Profiling people simply means we make an effort to figure out what motivates others and how they prefer to live, work and interact so we can meet them at least halfway.
Failing to work at communication on a regular basis.
If relationships between colleagues and managers is going to be successful, it requires ongoing communication. It requires effort. Couples learn to express their concerns and adjust their approach for the long term based on what has worked and what hasn’t. Rarely do you find two people who get it “right” all the time without an occasional adjustment or two, or three, or four.
In the workplace, it appears we have an expectation that just because there is a list of “essential functions,” everyone should be quite clear on what they do, how they do it, for whom, and under what circumstances. If it does require more than an average effort to resolve issues between people (especially between employees and their managers), we immediately assume it requires disciplinary action. Perhaps we should remember that relationships that break down are usually relationships that suffer from ineffective communication or from none at all.
This list of communications mistakes may just be the beginning of the work to be done when it comes to constructive interaction. However, it’s definitely a good start to better understanding in any industry—especially one where lives as well as words are always “on the line.”
