A phrase is worth a thousand words

It is easy to fall in the temptation of believing that communicating is just putting words together, but nothing is further from the truth. To begin with, there is a lot of communication that does not imply words, from the road signs to hand gestures, from corporate logos to computer icons, from photographs to lines in the sand, and all of them are perfectly valid ways to convey meaning. That is what the original adage means. But even if we focus on verbal communication, the whole is way more than the sum of the parts.

Photo: HikingArtist

Today I have learnt that one of my colleagues in the office was sent home due to visible symptoms of COVID-19. I have been on vacation the last two weeks and even if I were working, he is not in my project, so I have nothing to fear, but it is worrisome that he was part of the group of people who has been exempt from home-office all along because the project he is working for is on a tight schedule. We will see how the disease affects the project and even other projects and departments in the future. But I wanted to focus today on the response of the director to the news.

The colleague was sent home yesterday afternoon after taking a sample from him for testing and today around lunch the director issued a statement clarifying the situation, explaining that one colleague had been sent home sick, that all the team members had also been sent home after undergoing testing and that we were waiting for the results to come in to see if further measures were necessary.

First of all, I think the timing is very meaningful: not only the response was fast, but also the communication was prompt. It signals that this is a circumstance of the utmost importance, which took precedence over everything else in his agenda and required the whole morning for proper handling.

The choice of words was also well targeted, reminding us of the need to follow the rules without falling into unnecessary alarm. The potential impact is huge, but now is not the right time to speculate, we just have to wait for the results to make an informed decision. I am pretty sure that they are already discussing scenarios but they made a very strong emphasis on sticking to evidence, which is reassuring.

A similar comment can be made about he length of the message: had it been shorter, it would have looked hasty and careless; had it been longer, it would have sounded troubled and apologetic. But with the right length you can transmit the right balance between how much you work on it and how urgent it is.

The channel, an email addressed "To all", also contributes to transmit the importance of this communication. It reveals that everyone in the office should be interested and informed about this event and its evolution, and being in the remote Purchase Department does not exempt you from following it.

Finally, the things that are not mentioned are also important. It is not clear if the infection (assuming it turns up positive) is the result of accidental exposure or mere recklessness, so even if there is an investigation there is no explicit threat in the message, and that is essential to avoid a general state of paranoia. Also the name of the affected co-worker has not been mentioned explicitly, and that signals the institutional respect for data privacy (of course, it took me no time to find out by other means who he was, because he was walking sick around the office and a lot of other people saw him).

Of course, these considerations only apply to the relatively dry email channel. Printed magazines, for instance, can convey many more implications by using the layout, typography, highlights, etc. And spoken language becomes a totally different range, with the timing, intonation and accent of the words, hand-gestures, facial expressions and so much more. So next time you think communication is easy, think again. Have a good evening.