Asynchronous communication through tools like Email, Slack, and Docs has become central to how teams work. But how do we ensure clarity when we can’t rely on real-time feedback?
Words and sentences can vary widely in meaning, and the bedrock of effective communication is shared context. In a conversation context can be transferred through facial expressions and body language - this is not possible in written communication. We must increase the specificity of our written communication to be reliably understood.
For example, suppose that last week Bob suggested to you and Sara that the team increase the timeout threshold in a critical API call. Suppose you send Sara a message that says:
I think Bob might have been wrong. We should do the opposite.
It is quite possible that Sara will misunderstand you. Perhaps Sara has had several conversations with Bob and she doesn’t know which of the many things Bob has said that you are referring to. Furthermore, perhaps Sara and you have different conceptions of what it means to do the “opposite” of increasing the timeout threshold.
Sara is much more likely to understand a message along the lines of:
I think Bob might have been wrong when he suggested increasing the timeout threshold. We should decrease it instead.
Both messages have the same meaning, but the latter is far harder to misinterpret. By explicitly specifying Bob’s opinion (we should increase the timeout threshold) and the conclusion (we should decrease the timeout threshold), the second message closes the primary ambiguities that could have led to Sara’s confusion.
Next time you’re writing an email or Slack message, pause to ask yourself: How could the person reading this misunderstand what I am saying? How could I add specificity to remove this possibility? By explicitly specifying key details, you’ll minimize confusion and have more productive conversations.