Awareness helps. Still, I've found that circumstances may not always allow you to acknowledge it or say it out loud. If your goal as say a marketing manager doing a product review to your CEO is to have them understand you, you may be disappointed. But if you want to understand what matters to your boss and their boss, and why so, then this awareness is a good entry point into feeding that curiosity.
The thinking levels piece corresponds to specifically the execution and impact levels that I've heard from Shreyas Doshi. One of the things Doshi and I think the Stoa post stops short of saying is that a big part of your inability to communicate with an important stakeholder is that they are probably thinking (and speaking) in a different level. Executing teams very often get caught up in input-output (task level) whereas executives often define success at the impact/outcome level.
Thank you for Michael Covington's guide. I love the practice of showing good writing from the ground up, which is showing all the mistakes along the way to good writing, rather than show a finished piece of great writing.
The level difference is expected to happen, but being aware of the difference is the key. Will qualifying what level you're communicating & acknowledging that this could be a reason for gaps in understanding a possible solve here?
Awareness helps. Still, I've found that circumstances may not always allow you to acknowledge it or say it out loud. If your goal as say a marketing manager doing a product review to your CEO is to have them understand you, you may be disappointed. But if you want to understand what matters to your boss and their boss, and why so, then this awareness is a good entry point into feeding that curiosity.
I would try to look for "have them understand my thought process" than "have them understand me".
But I agree, it's not a easy problem and no straight forward answer.
Oh yes, I meant understand how or why I'm thinking about it. It's more situational, less personal.
The thinking levels piece corresponds to specifically the execution and impact levels that I've heard from Shreyas Doshi. One of the things Doshi and I think the Stoa post stops short of saying is that a big part of your inability to communicate with an important stakeholder is that they are probably thinking (and speaking) in a different level. Executing teams very often get caught up in input-output (task level) whereas executives often define success at the impact/outcome level.
Thank you for Michael Covington's guide. I love the practice of showing good writing from the ground up, which is showing all the mistakes along the way to good writing, rather than show a finished piece of great writing.
The level difference is expected to happen, but being aware of the difference is the key. Will qualifying what level you're communicating & acknowledging that this could be a reason for gaps in understanding a possible solve here?