What are the harms that poor communication can cause?

The direct harm lies in a simple decline in work efficiency. Let’s take a situation where an employee is given a task that takes an entire day to complete. The deadline is set as “as soon as possible,” without specifying why or within what timeframe. Such a task may be completed by the end of the day if the employee interprets “as soon as possible” as implicitly meaning that all other tasks are now less important. However, the same phrase could also be understood to mean that the task should be started at the first available opportunity, i.e. only after everything else currently in progress has been completed.

“Ambiguous communication can leave out too much necessary information that is important for understanding what was actually meant.”

The indirect harm lies in the way repeated misunderstandings can eventually lead to tensions within a team. People often fail to notice how clear or unclear their own messages are. It is always easier to understand your own message when you have direct access to the thoughts behind it. At the same time, it is worth remembering that other people do not have that same access. Linguistic communication generally cannot convey our thoughts as precisely as they exist in our minds. Any interaction with another person involves, to some extent, translating thoughts into words, and some information inevitably gets lost in the process. All of this means that when misunderstandings repeatedly arise between people, there is a tendency to attribute at least some of the blame to the other party. This, in turn, creates fertile ground for conflicts, ultimately affecting the working environment of the entire team.

How does argumentative communication solve these problems?

Argumentative communication involves, among other things, two important principles. First, we should always be prepared to calmly and rationally explain our thoughts, adding logical reasoning and providing examples to support our positions. This helps the listener better understand what a particular position entails and why it is being presented that way. Clear and logical reasoning helps separate the message from emotions, creating a more rational tone. This, in turn, reduces the likelihood that constructive criticism will be perceived as a personal attack.

Second, argumentation encourages us to focus on what matters most. It can make messages, decisions, or proposals visible that might otherwise remain hidden or unclear. “As soon as possible” is too vague a deadline to be genuinely useful. “As soon as possible, because we need to send it on by next Monday at the latest” is already much better, as it provides a clearer timeframe as well as the reason behind it.

Since effective communication is an integral part of collaboration, communication problems are universally harmful, regardless of the type of team in which they occur. The use of sound argumentation is one way to prevent or resolve a wide range of common communication problems.

Oskar Samuel Rebane 
Trainer and Moderator 
SpeakSmatrt

Oskar has been engaged in debating and thus active public speaking for the last 10 years, during which time he has repeatedly become Estonian champion in various categories. In recent years he has moved on to the role of judge and trainer, and has run debating and public speaking clubs in various organisations.

SpeakSmart is Estonia’s leading training and consulting company in argumentation and communication skills. Its mission is to help individuals and teams communicate effectively, think critically, express their views clearly, and make better decisions. Over its 18 years of operation, the company has trained more than 22,000 people.