One of the most challenging things about being a leader is watching a simple miscommunications lead to big issues that could have easily been avoided. It’s watching people come from different points of view, all with the same objectives, all wanting the same goals, but approaching the issue believing that the end goal is something they want but others don’t. Or just failing to see a similar perspective from a vantage point other than their own.

I’ve tried to live by the mantra, ‘The meaning of your communication is the response that you get.’ …Putting the onus of responsibility on myself when my message was not received the way I intended it. Yet I too still mess up. I have to take a step back and question where my error was? And when I don’t see an error in thinking, I can still often see an error in my communication.

But ‘error’ might be too strong of a word. It might only be a mistake after the idea was shared and received. Only after an unexpected response am I able to look back and see how my words could be misunderstood, how my message could be perceived differently than expected. This is the work I try to do.

However, when the miscommunication happens before I’m involved my entrance is even more delicate. When the temperature has risen before I enter, it’s often hard to get others to see that their communication did not align with their intended message. It becomes an issue where even to suggest some responsibility for miscommunication can seem like blame, rather than a means to reach a resolution. And so my communication becomes even more challenging. If my point is missed then I’m not being supportive, I’m not helping the issue, I’m missing the point.

And if that’s the message I’m giving off, then that’s the meaning of my communication, and the undesired response is my fault. If I’m not willing to take that responsibility, then I’m not modelling what I’m expecting of others.