“Nature abhors a vacuum.” So said Aristotle, and maybe some other Greek philosophers before him. Originally, Aristotle’s statement was about physics. But one of the most noteworthy uptakes on Aristotle’s dictum comes from playwright George Bernard Shaw, who applied it to human communication: “Nature abhors a vacuum: whenever people do not know the truth, they fill the gaps with conjecture.”
Strong communicators communicate early, often, with empathy, and with full consideration of the impact their words will have. I have always known this. But I haven’t always put it into practice as an academic leader. The facet of communication I’ve always struggled with the most is empathy. Partly because I’m an introvert, and partly because I’m simply plain-spoken, I have sometimes struggled with balancing my obligation to be candid with my equal obligation to be caring. To all of the faculty who were ever on the receiving end of my candor, I apologize that I did not always communicate empathy as clearly.
Nevertheless, I’ve often been amazed at the outsized impact my words would have as a leader. I would often attempt to communicate this much (envision me holding my thumb and index finger one centimeter apart), only to learn that my words were taken to mean this much (envision me holding my arms and hands as wide apart as possible).
This phenomenon I call the Iceberg Effect. For various reasons, people often interpret the words of leaders like icebergs, assuming that the bulk of the message exists only beneath the surface of what is said. Further, they interpret what lay beneath the surface as a hazard that needs to be avoided or sometimes attacked.
Reasons for the Iceberg Effect
Nature Abhors A Vacuum
As noted above, in the presence of incomplete information, persons tend to supply the missing information with conjecture that reflects their hopes, fears, assumptions, or causal inferences. And the more emotionally invested listeners are in the situation, the more likely they are to supply this missing information with their own suppositions.
Inordinate Weight Given to Administrative Pronouncements
I sometimes found myself misunderstanding the weight my public statements would have among those I supervised. I always tried to communicate clearly and candidly. But I should have accounted better for the tendency of others to see my comments as code for much broader truths than I had actually stated. Leaders must accommodate and adjust for many human tendencies as they lead. I simply thought my comments would be taken at face value, and that if I had meant to communicate broader truths, I would have articulated those clearly as well. But no matter how clearly I attempted to communicate, and no matter how consistently I communicated in that way, some employees would inevitably infer far more than I said.
The Temptation To Predict
We have an inherent tendency to predict the future using incomplete data from the present. This temptation is present in all arenas of human life and not only higher ed. The cause of this temptation may be the same sort of simple curiosity that drives us to discover new truth in any field. It’s inductive reasoning at work: condition X is present in situations 1, 2, and 3. Therefore, condition X is likely present in situation 4 as well. In other cases, it is fear that drives us to predict the future, particularly if we are suspicious that we are in the presence of some kind of threat. In such an environment, we are always on the lookout for threats to our security or priorities. For some faculty, administrative pronouncements produce that kind of effect.
The Standing of the Speaker
All leadership pronouncements occur in a context. And the various assumptions that listeners have about the leaders making pronouncements is part of that context, whether those assumptions are good or bad. The role of fear mentioned above could be expanded to include other negative emotions such as distaste or aversion. If listeners distrust the leader or have decided they simply don’t like him or her, they are much more likely to read distasteful implications into the leader’s words.
Responding to the Iceberg Effect
The simplest pathway toward preventing the Iceberg Effect is to be universally liked by those you lead. People who like you are much more likely to give you the benefit of the doubt and less likely to think you are working from malevolent motives. Indeed, that may be what it means actually to “like” someone.
Of course, even if being universally liked were possible as a leader, it’s seldom desirable. Given the wide variety of preferences and agendas present within a room of, say, 300 faculty and staff, it is practically impossible to be universally liked and to practice leadership authentically.
The final and obvious truth is that your words as a leader are liable to be misinterpreted and/or blown out of all proportion by those who for various reasons are prone to respond in that way. But that doesn’t mean that you simply roll with the iceberg Effect and make no attempt to counteract its negative consequences. Here are a few techniques I have learned (usually the hard way) about to mitigate the Iceberg Effect.
Practice Empathy
Seek empathy with your listeners when you make substantive statements to them. Ideally, see your words from the perspective of the most vulnerable and distraught listener in the room. Depending upon the role of that person in the organization, his or her views will carry more weight than yours will among the rank and file. Try to hear your own words from the perspective of that vulnerable person, no matter how wrong or misdirected you might think that person to be.
Be Candid But Clear
That doesn’t mean that you qualify your statements with a hundred disclaimers about what you don’t mean. That will only come across as insecure. And besides, you can never fully anticipate all of the ways that your words could be misunderstood! Nevertheless, if you condition your words with a comment that you’re trying to be candid and clear, that may minimize the tendency of listeners to think, “Well, what he/she really means by that is. . . ,” and then try to fill in the blanks of your words with their own conjecture.
Be Candid Habitually
It can be confusing to listeners if the leader is sometimes plain-spoken and at other times reserved and inferential. If you sometimes lace your verbal observations and guidance with verbiage that signals you’re implying much more than you’re literally saying, listeners will assume that to be the case even when you’re trying to be utterly candid. Instead, pick a speaking style, and stick with it. Very often, your listeners will not be privy to all details about a situation, and there won’t be anything you can do about that. But make sure you don’t give them reason to think that you’re implying more than you’re actually saying. You’ll only raise far more questions and will leave the impression that you’re leaving out vital information.
Be Candid But Kind
Very often, candor can be interpreted as meanness or a lack of compassion. This problem is much worse today now that thin skin has become the fashion in public discourse. I advocate for being as honest with listeners about how you desire their welfare and wholeness as you are with delivering tough news honestly. I have encountered much disagreement with colleagues and supervisors on this topic. Many of them would much rather I had used more restrained and indirect language when addressing problems or important issues. But in this respect, I am only trying to practice the Golden Rule and advocate for speaking to others as I would like to be spoken to.
Be Emotionally Self-Aware
It isn’t only your listeners who will have emotional responses to your communications. You undoubtedly have emotions attached to the content of those communications also. But if your goal is only to communicate facts clearly, and if those facts have the potential to be overshadowed by the emotional responses of your listeners, you must bracket your own emotions and make sure you don’t communicate them along with the facts.
I am not suggesting that leaders should never show their emotions or be emotionally inauthentic with those they lead. But emotions can become attached to facts in ways that are either helpful or unhelpful. While some listeners will respect a leader who emotes in front of them, others will interpret it as emotional manipulation, will respond emotionally themselves, and will become even less able to hear the actual message you are attempting to convey. Hence, if you choose to convey emotion, be careful and deliberate about the ones you choose to communicate. And make sure that those emotions aid rather than hinder clear communication.
Conclusion
The Iceberg Effect is never fully avoidable. But by practicing empathy, choosing your words carefully, and managing emotions proactively, you can limit the negative consequences of the Effect. Remember: nature abhors a vacuum. If you don’t fill it with something helpful, someone else may fill it with something less desirable.