Robustness in communication
If you work in software, you may have heard of The Robustness Principle, aka Postel’s Law. It states that when designing software systems, programmers should:
Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send.
In software, this means that you should always send data in a format that is as conformant with the spec as possible. And, you should always accept data that is not conformant but for which the meaning is clear. This leads to robust systems.
In human communication the same thing applies. I have an internal version of Postel’s Law that I think about fairly often:
Accommodate mediocre communication from others, and do not tolerate it in yourself.
It took me a long time to learn this. Too long. When someone said something confusing that I mostly understood even if it wasn’t communicated well, my lizard brain reacted strongly. I fixated on how they were communicating instead of what they were trying to tell me.
Having now been on the receiving end of that type of reaction for a while now, I am proud to say that I am a recovering violator of this rule.
Note that, like Postel’s Law, there are some valid criticisms to be had here. For example, most programmers know that if you don’t enforce a standard and are too accommodating of malformed input, at some point the standard can become less effective in general and developing applications against it is much more of a chore. cXML and EDI come to mind.
Just like communication – if you simply tolerate poor communication from others 100% of the time, then nobody will improve and, well, you’re stuck in an organization with people don’t know how to communicate. And that will truncate your career.
Generally the advantages of this approach far outweigh these downsides. People feel heard by you and are comfortable talking to you. They feel less judged. Able to be more honest and direct.
Hmm, I'm not quite sure I understand how to practically implement the advice you are giving. Every time I hear some casually explain something in a poor way I'm suppose to correct their explanation? This type of person would get annoying to be around after awhile. We all make mistakes when it comes to casual conversation and these conversations are probably meant to be used as a "playground" for exploring new ideas.
If someone says something confusing, ask them to explain what they were trying to say again rather than correcting them. It's better to give them another shot, rather then come across as a person who is high-strung and difficult to be around.
I'm saying the opposite :) When someone is confusing, instead of correcting them (which becomes insufferable as you suggest), make an honest attempt to understand them first.
Agreed! Have you read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell? In it, he talks about Hofstede's cultural dimensions (While working for IBM in Europe, Geert Hofstede, a Dutch psychologist, developed a database to analyze cultural differences).
One of the dimensions was Power Distance Index (PDI) - i.e. how likely individuals from a given country are to push back against authority. A “low” PDI means more likely to push back against authority while a “high” PDI means less likely. The US' PDI is very low whilst Colombia's is very high.
Gladwell's theory is that certain plane crashes could have been avoided if it weren't for the fact that the cultural differences between the pilots & copilots made their response to a given situation unfavorable. Eg.: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/130709-asiana-flight-214-crash-korean-airlines-culture-outliers
It's possible that, what's essentially beating around the bush and failing to ruthlessly communicate clearly (however awkward) could have caused the airplanes to crash.
All of this to say: unclear communications can result in dire consequences.
I loved this book. I read it a while back and it's so dense that I've forgotten half of the insights...I might read it again. I remember it really made me question to what extent we can control our outcomes in life and to what extent the results of our actions have more to do with the cards we've been dealt in life.
I agree in what you wrote @dpaola2 about the need to be robust in the way we communicate. I think it's easier to work efficiently this way, at least (with a few exceptions e.g. people's negative reactions to your robustness setting you back). But it's interesting to consider, as @uxland points out, whether the extent to which we naturally do communicate this way, depends on where we come from. Perhaps it also depends on the professions we're in. Maybe developers find it easier to communicate this way since they're familiar with Postel's law.
Terrific reply. I read that book many years ago when it first came out, looks like it's time for a re-read.
As an engineer it's a near-automatic goal for me to try to be efficient. I've since learned that effectiveness is a far better north star. There are so many situations where my desire to be efficient actually gets in the way of my ability to deliver results. In a way, the robustness principle is actually about that. It's less efficient to be more flexible in communications but it significantly boosts my effectiveness. Ya know?
Nice! This actually reminds me of something I've been trying to ingrain in myself for the better part of a decade: "It's more important to be nice than right."
Obviously, there's a threshold - I'm not suggesting people should never stand up for themselves and voice their opinions. But I just didn't have a threshold in my early twenties. I liked a good debate and in hindsight, I've gotten into a lot of tedious arguments that did nothing but make my "unaware opponent" feel bad, paint me as annoying and arrogant, and weren't in any way constructive.
Now, I still have strong opinions, and I live by my values. But I'm a lot more selective as to when I choose to voice/defend them. It's often not as worth it as you think - my advice is, let it go.
Totally. I think of it more as: it's more important to be effective than it is to be right. Effectiveness sometimes means being nice, sometimes it means being kind, and sometimes it means ripping the bandaid off and being brutally direct when the situation calls for it.