I have three people who report to me, and they generally carry out their responsibilities without any difficulties. But sometimes when I point out something that they haven’t done correctly or on time, they say that they weren’t clear on what I wanted. To what level of detail do I need to spell things out for them?

Some years ago, a gentleman by the name of Ferdinand F. Fournies (his real name – I couldn’t have made it up) conducted a study to get answers to the question, “Why don’t employees do what they’re supposed to do?” The number one reason, and the one that was cited more than all other reasons combined, was: “They don’t know what they’re supposed to do.”

I can sense some frustration in the way our reader expresses wonderment at employees being unclear on what’s expected of them. Most supervisors believe that they conscientiously direct, guide, and coach their employees. However, communication between two people doesn’t end when the supervisor stops speaking; it ends only when the employee has understood fully what the message is. (Communication is a competitive sport in which the first person to pause for breath is declared the listener.)

Keeping communication clear and direct

No supervisor deliberately couches instructions in vague or misleading language. But being preoccupied or pressed for time can result in incomplete or rushed communication. And that goes for both parties. Employees end up feeling that their supervisor is playing a game called “Guess what I want.”

This feeling can be particularly acute when an employee submits work for feedback and is told, “This isn’t exactly what I had in mind.” (Well, if you had it exactly in mind, why didn’t you tell me exactly what it was?)

Now, it’s certainly possible that the fault may lie with the employee. But it’s still the supervisor’s responsibility to ensure that the employee has understood. One way to do this is to have the employee paraphrase the directive back; that is, repeat the directive so that the supervisor is satisfied that the employee has indeed understood the full message, which consists of the following elements:

1. What the task is
2. Where it is to be carried out
3. With whom
4. Using what resources
5. To what standard of performance (accuracy, completeness, safety, waste, etc.); in other words, how well
6. By when

Am I suggesting that supervisors need to go through this every time they assign a task to someone? No, just the tasks that meet at least one of these criteria:

1. The task is mission-critical.
2. Poor or non-execution may result in harm to people or property.
3. The employee has already performed the task, but not to the supervisor’s satisfaction.
4. The employee needs to tell other people what the task is in order for it to get done

Paraphrasing isn’t parroting; employees should use their own words when feeding the task back to supervisors.

Got a minute?

If you meet up with an employee unexpectedly as you’re both going to different places, it’s not the best time to deliver important, task-related information. Both parties have something else on their minds, so the odds in favour of accurate communication aren’t good.

So far I’ve been referring to oral communication; however; misunderstandings can crop up with electronic communication too. I don’t know about you, but I have a bad habit of sometimes skimming email messages, especially if a large number arrive at the same time, or if I feel pressed for time. When I revisit the messages later, I’m surprised to see that I missed the actual intent. To communicate electronically with people like me, try the following:

1. Have an attention-getting subject line.
2. If you need me to do something, put that in the first sentence.
3. Write short sentences composed of easily understood words.
4. State how and when you will follow up.

Around twenty years ago, a friend of mine said that there is really no such thing as over-communication in workplaces. Everything in my experience since then has proved her right. Today it’s more than easy for employees to be distracted by information, or data, or just noise, that comes at them from a variety of sources. It’s also the case that the information arrives unprioritized, or worse, all labelled top priority. One email says that it’s vital that you send in your contribution for the baby shower, while another says that what’s really vital is getting research to you so you can prepare briefing notes for your director’s meeting with the assistant deputy minister. It sounds like they’re both Priority #1, and employees can get confused trying to sort it all out. So, to help prevent priority confusion, remember this little phrase:

Don’t just do something; stand there.

Standing there means giving a little thought to how you will communicate with your employee. Most North American workplaces have as a part of their cultures a bias for action. I once worked for a company for which “bias for action” was actually a competency. Their phrase would have been, “Don’t just stand there; do something.” But that’s a recipe for miscommunication. If it’s important for the employee to perform the task satisfactorily, it’s equally important for the supervisor to communicate expectations so that both parties are clear.

To submit a question for a future column, or to comment on a previous one, please contact editor@charityvillage.com. No identifying information will appear in this column. For paid professional advice about an urgent or complex situation, contact Tim directly.

Tim Rutledge, Ph.D., is a veteran human resources consultant and publisher of Mattanie Press. You can contact him at tim_rutledge@sympatico.ca or visit www.gettingengaged.ca.

Disclaimer: Advice and recommendations are based on limited information provided and should be used as a guideline only. Neither the author nor CharityVillage.com make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability for accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information provided in whole or in part within this article.

Please note: While we ensure that all links and e-mail addresses are accurate at their publishing date, the quick-changing nature of the web means that some links to other web sites and e-mail addresses may no longer be accurate.