4 ms·
>Good luck if you ever have a boss or a colleague who prefers rapport and empathetic communication over the more direct, rational style you prefer. You are goin
by Declanomous 10y ago
>Good luck if you ever have a boss or a colleague who prefers rapport and empathetic communication over the more direct, rational style you prefer. You are going to continually wonder why that boss expects you to read their mind.
That hit home for me. I once got called down to HR to find my boss there. I discovered at that moment that she was frustrated with how long it was taking me to do my job. Part of my job is pulling data for mailings out of our database. We have ~1 million constituents, and regularly send mailings with tens of thousands of recipients. She had performed that role before me, and she felt that it could be done much more quickly that I was performing it.
Turns out, I could perform the task as quickly as she expected, but I had totally misunderstood a conversation we had months earlier. Word had gotten to my boss that a person had called in because of a factual error on a piece of mail we had sent them. She came by my desk and asked me about the error, as I had specifically said the file was 99.5% error free. I mentioned that the incorrect information had been put in the database by someone else, and the error rate was about what I had expected. She told me that she wanted 99.9% error free mailings from then on.
Later on, I sent her data for another mailing. She came by my desk and asked if the data was 100% correct. I said I was confident it was 99.9% correct. She said we couldn't have any errors this time, and we needed to make sure that the data was 100% correct. I told her that it was fundamentally impossible to be 100% sure the data was correct. She said that she understood, but she wanted it 99.99% correct, as we couldn't mail constituents information that was wrong. I said it would probably take 10x longer to run the data, but I could do that if she wanted it. She did, so I proceeded to make sure the data was 99.99% correct.
She was absolutely flabbergasted when I brought these conversations up. To her, she thought 100% confidence meant "pretty damn sure" and 99% confidence was somewhere around "It's probably right, maybe." From my perspective, 99.5% correct meant we'd have 5 or fewer bad rows for every 1000 rows in the data.
It was so weird for both of us, because we both thought we had been incredibly clear with the other person. I thought I had been very clear with my point -- I had spoken with her about how long it would take to ensure the data was 99.99% correct several times, because I was concerned about the delay. She had thought she was being emphatic, ad I was just being a pain in the ass. The thing is, that I'm generally not particularly hung up on the difference between literal meaning and figurative meaning, and she generally pretty clear when expressing what she wanted in technical conversations without hyperbole. So she hadn't even considered that I was interpreting her comments literally, and I hadn't considered that she was being hyperbolic.
It was definitely a huge learning experience for both of us. We had both been really stressed for months because we failed to communicate effectively with one another, despite both of us recognizing the same problem and trying to bring it to the other person's attention.
- ScottBurson 10y agoInteresting story. I sympathize with you. Seems to me that when you use actual numbers, they should mean what numbers mean -- otherwise, what's the point of using them in the first place? So yes, 99.5% means 5 errors in 1000 rows, etc. Just tell her you're giving it 110% effort :-)
- Declanomous 10y ago>110% effort. I'll just make 55% of the rows doubly accurate. The other 45% of the rows... well, we just won't talk about those. > When you use actual numbers, they should mean what numbers mean That's what I thought, but percentages seem to be thought-terminating cliches for most people. I generally use ratios when presenting information to most people as a result, but I really thought my manager and I were on the same page. This issue certainly wouldn't have happened if I had described our error as "1-in-200" from the start. I report directly to the director of the organization now though, and in addition to being much more pragmatic about necessary trade-offs, he is pretty hands-off. I think a hands-off style to management goes a long way to reducing communications errors. Each conversation becomes much more important when you aren't having them just for the sake of having them, so everyone seems to pay attention more.
- ScottBurson 10y agoI hope your manager took at least some responsibility for the miscommunication, because I can't figure out how you could have been clearer. Pointing out the cost of getting to true 99.99% accuracy should have been enough -- particularly when the prediction was borne out.
- DanBC 10y agoNobody understands percentages. This isn't just something that happens to people with normal average intelligence. It happens to lawyers in adversarial situations; it happens to doctors and nurses talking about test results; it happens to bosses. If you ever find yourself using a percentage you're often better off switching to normal numbers. "1 in 10,000"; "50 out of 100"; "9,999 out of 10,000". This is especially true if you're communicating changes. "Risk rises from 1 in 10,000 to 2 in 10,000", rather than "100% increase in risk".