Emails, meetings, calls, chat messages \u2013 we communicate more than ever. And yet, people in organizations misunderstand each other as often as never before. <\/p>\n
This is not because too little is being said, but because of how communication occurs. Most leaders confuse sending with being understood. <\/p>\n
A sentence that perfectly illustrates this:
\n “I sent the email \u2013 it says everything in there.”<\/p>\n
An illusion. Because communication does not end with sending a message. It only begins there. <\/p>\n
Communication works through signs, not through thoughts
\n When people communicate, they do not exchange thoughts. They exchange signs \u2013 words, gestures, intonations, images, symbols. These signs are always only proxies for meaning. <\/p>\n
Semiotics describes exactly that: A sign stands for something \u2013 but the recipient decides what exactly.<\/p>\n
A simple example:<\/strong> Or take the word “love.” For one it is romance, for another responsibility, for a third pain. <\/p>\n These examples show what happens in every communication: <\/p>\n Between what someone means and what the other person understands, there are two filter sections \u2013 at the sender and at the recipient.<\/p>\n 1. The sender’s filter<\/strong> This selection is always a compromise between intention, time pressure, mood and routine. 2. The recipient’s filter<\/strong> The result: Each recipient constructs his own version of the message. The misunderstanding as the normal state But the real question is: Was what was meant understood \u2013 or only what was heard?<\/p>\n Misunderstandings are therefore not an exception, but the normal state of human communication. Anyone who ignores this lives in a communication illusion. <\/p>\n And this illusion is dangerous \u2013 especially in leadership. Leadership begins where meaning arises This requires dialogue. <\/p>\n 1. Context before content<\/strong> 2. Make meaning explicit<\/strong> 3. Feedback as a duty, not an option<\/strong> Communication is leadership work Emails, meetings, calls, chat messages \u2013 we communicate more than ever. And yet, people in organizations misunderstand each other as often as never before. This is not because too little is being said, but because of how communication occurs. Most leaders confuse sending with being understood. A sentence that perfectly illustrates this: “I sent the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6064,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6063","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-nicht-kategorisiert"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n Say the word “tree,” and everyone in the room sees something different.
\n One thinks of a fir tree in the snow, another of an old oak, and yet another of a primeval giant. The sign is the same \u2013 the meaning completely different. <\/p>\n
\n At the moment of hearing or reading, attributions are triggered \u2013 highly individual, subjective, emotional reactions. They are based on experiences, values, biography and context. This means: I can \u2013 completely unconsciously \u2013 trigger a completely different perception and interpretation in the other person than I intended.Why filters make the difference<\/h3>\n
\n The sender unconsciously decides,
\n – what he says and what he leaves out,
\n – how much context he provides,
\n – which tone he uses,
\n – how much emotion or distance he puts into it.<\/p>\n
\n This is where the first distortion begins.<\/p>\n
\n The recipient decodes the signs through his own filters:
\n – Expectations (“What does he want this time?”),
\n – Emotions (“Criticism or interest?”),
\n – Relationship (“What is his attitude towards me?”),
\n – personal experience and cultural background.<\/p>\n
\n This creates an individual universe of meaning \u2013 and it is usually further away from the original train of thought than one thinks.<\/p>\n
\n In practice, this leads to a fatal self-deception:
\n People believe they have been understood just because they have said or written something.<\/p>\n
\n Because it creates false security: “I communicated it after all.”
\n But what actually arrived at the other person remains unclear.<\/p>\n
\n Leadership means giving orientation. But orientation only arises when meaning is shared.
\n Therefore, it is the task of every manager to understand communication not as transmission, but as meaning work. <\/p>\n
\n Because clarity about what was really understood only arises through exchange.
\n If you want to achieve an effect, you have to ask, check, listen \u2013 and be prepared to adapt your own repertoire of signs.<\/p>\nThree principles for clearer leadership communication<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n A sentence like “We need to talk” can be an invitation or a threat \u2013 depending on the situation.
\n Therefore: Create context before sending content.
\n “I’m concerned with coordination, not criticism.”
\n This is how you immediately reduce misinterpretations.<\/p>\n
\n Formulate your intention:
\n “I want us to have a common understanding, not just a decision.”
\n Small sentences, big impact.<\/p>\n
\n Don’t ask: “Everything clear?”
\n Ask:
\n “How did you understand that?”
\n “What are you specifically taking away from this?”
\n This is how you check meaning \u2013 not approval.<\/p>\n
\n In our experience, it shows:
\n The higher the responsibility, the greater the impact of communication filters \u2013 and the less often they are recognized.
\n Managers who actively shape the communication process communicate more precisely, are better understood and avoid frictional losses.
\n They create clarity where others create confusion \u2013 and trust where others need control.
\n Because the real art of leadership is not to say more,
\n but to bring intended meaning and understood meaning into alignment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"