It’s ironic that ambiguity has clearly negative consequences for business. Research by McKinsey & Company found that companies experiencing high levels of uncertainty in their organizational structure can see their profit margins shrink by up to 18%. A Gallup report indicated that employees who lack clarity on their roles are 91% less likely to be engaged in their work. Despite its severe impact, ambiguity remains pervasive in business – HBR reported that 58% of employees feel unclear about how their performance is being measured. In a world where people are overwhelmed by information, it seems they are thirsty for clarity.
There is a broad range of opinions about what makes a leader an effective communicator. Albert Mehrabian’s model states that 7% of communication is words, 38% is tone and voice, and 55% is body language. The 4MAT model, pioneered by Dr. Bernice McCarthy, suggests that for people to truly learn and understand, communication must provide context (why), information (what), instructions and guidelines (how), and benefits (what if). While the exact formula for effective communication is contextual, what is abundantly clear is that great leaders adapt to their context and communicate effectively. Effective communication enables clarity and understanding, allowing individuals and teams to perform with confidence.
Understanding Ambiguity
Ambiguity is sometimes confused with anxiety, and while there are similarities, they also have important differences. Anxiety comes from someone’s internal thoughts and imagination, which drives excessive worry, while ambiguity comes from external communications and subsequent interpretations.
Ambiguity causes ‘cognitive dissonance’ – when two sets of information should match but don’t. Where anxiety leads to a misdirection of focus away from actual problems toward imagined problems, ambiguity leads to divided or uncoordinated effort in teams and action paralysis in individuals. It will come as no surprise to anyone to hear that ambiguous statements are prevalent in business communication. While there are millions of examples, the three primary forms that create the most problems are contradictory statements, double binds, and vague statements.
A common form of ambiguity in business is contradicting statements. These are often well-intentioned attempts by leaders to communicate hard messages in a soft way, for example, saying, “I know you’ve never done this before, but I’m sure you’ll do a great job,” or “This is really important and mission-critical, but it can wait.” If it is mission-critical, then logically, something needs to be done, and it needs to be done quickly. But if it can wait, then is it really mission-critical?
Another common form of ambiguity that has a truly paralysing impact on business performance is the double bind. These are the “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” statements. They cause action paralysis because, no matter what is done, it will be perceived as wrong. A simple example would be, “Make sure this is done before you leave, but don’t work too hard or go into overtime.” The ambiguity of the statement drives action paralysis because you’re wrong no matter what you do.
The most pervasive form of ambiguity in business communication is the vague statement. For instance, “Someone should probably do something about this at some point”. Who is that someone? Should someone take up the task now, or will that be deemed inappropriate as it is not the right time? What if they are not the right person to do it? Again, this creates action paralysis as it is unclear what should be done by whom and when. Look over business planning documents and you’ll likely see them littered with vagaries such as timings labelled ‘asap’, owners as ‘all’, and outcomes as ‘increased volumes’ – all of which limit people’s ability to act in a timely fashion, be accountable, and measure success.
All these forms of ambiguity present risk for businesses, leaders, and their teams as they all lead to a lack of clarity. This lack of clarity can lead to divided and uncoordinated efforts, or even inaction, as different individuals and groups can interpret the instructions in different ways. This fracturing of effort undermines the ability of individuals and teams to solve problems, and it can create even more problems for the business.
Measuring levels of Ambiguity
Ambiguity may appear more obvious and measurable than other psychosocial risk factors such as anxiety, stimulation, and conformity. However, it remains a challenge because it has value for business when applied in the right way in the right context. Research by MIT cognitive scientists Gibson and Piantadosi highlighted that ambiguity makes language more efficient. If every idea needs to be explained in detail, then businesses will grind to a halt. However, this drive for efficiency is often abused by leaders who expect people to understand the subtext and inferred meaning of their communication, even when it isn’t clear.
Understanding and assessing the leader's communication style is essential. To determine whether communication is clear and effective, organizations must assess the personality, virtues, and relationship attachment style of their leaders, as well as each leader’s impact on ambiguity. Leaders who are high in ‘Avoidant Relationships’ are likely to have a more detached style and use emails and messaging services rather than communicating in person. While email has created massive efficiencies and has its place, it is widely regarded as one of the more passive-aggressive forms of business communication, often leaving a lot to interpretation.
Leaders with personalities that communicate with more emotion, ego, and the intention to engage in ‘perception management’ are more likely to increase ambiguity than leaders who prefer facts, rational viewpoints, and a strong consideration of others' perspectives. Understanding the innate personality of leaders and measuring their impact on ambiguity is essential to enhancing the psychosocial safety and performance of individuals and teams. Gold standard personality tests that ensure an honest assessment of a leader’s communication style can provide valuable insights. To learn more about how to measure a leader’s impact on ambiguity, check out https://tgsleadership.com/knowledge-hub/psychosocial-risk-factors-asca.
Strategies to minimize Ambiguity
The most effective communicators employ simple strategies, frameworks, and skills to minimize the likelihood of their message being misunderstood and poorly acted upon. While there are thousands of models and frameworks for effective communication, great leaders apply a handful of these consistently and institutionalize them across their teams and organizations. Fundamentally, they seek to eliminate the risk of contradictory statements, double-binds, and vagaries in communication.
One of the most effective frameworks applied by effective communicators is based on the 4MAT model from Bernice McCarthy. An effective leader ensures their communication conveys not just ‘what’ they want people to think, feel, or do, but they emphasize the critical principle of great thinkers like Simon Sinek. They start with ‘why’ because context matters, and it enhances engagement and motivation. They also ensure their communication conveys ‘how’ to move forward and ‘what if’ – the impact and benefits of taking action. Leaders who cross-check their communication against these four virtual questions are more likely to have their messages heard, understood, and acted on effectively.
Another framework that can help minimize ambiguity in business communication and ensure accountability for action is the RACI model – a framework to identify who is ‘Responsible’ for actions and initiatives, who is ‘Accountable’ for decisions and outcomes, who should be ‘Consulted’ as a key stakeholder, and who needs to be ‘Informed’ about progress and decisions. This ensures there is no ambiguity about who is responsible for actions and decisions. Everyone who matters is clear about who’s in the mix, and activity is coordinated so nothing is duplicated or diluted. RACI can complement other effective planning tools, such as SMART actions or a plan-on-a-page, that create clarity and accountability when appropriately applied.
Finally, great leaders tend to insist on frameworks and structures to improve inherently ambiguous communication tools such as email. Applying email protocols such as the Inform-Action-Decision (IAD) framework can dramatically improve how people across the organization use email. IAD stipulates that the first word in the email subject lines is either ‘Inform’ – for sharing information or informing recipients of a decision or action, ‘Action’ – when the recipients are required to take a specific action in a clear timeframe, or ‘Decision’ – communicating a decision is needed from recipients in a specific timeframe, as well as the impact if a decision is not made. Not surprisingly, the volume of ‘Inform’ emails tends to decrease over time. Priority is given to emails that emphasize actions and decisions, and people are clear on what emails relate to and what they need to do.
Ambiguity presents an (un)clear and present danger for every business. It can lead to divided, diluted, and uncoordinated efforts in teams as well as action paralysis in individuals. A critical role of the leader is to minimize ambiguity by applying and implementing effective communication strategies, frameworks, and skills themselves and across their organization. This enables teams to identify better and understand what is required, choose the best course of action, and take steps in a focused and aligned manner.
In a world where people are drowning in information, leaders must communicate clearly to reduce ambiguity and drive excellence in execution across the business. Boards, CEOs, WHS experts, Recruiters, and People & Culture teams need to accurately measure the impact every leader has on ambiguity, so they can mitigate the legislative and commercial risk of poor psychosocial safety in the business.
To find out more about how your organization can measure and improve your leaders’ impact on ambiguity and other psychosocial risk factors, talk to us: http://tgsleadership.com
