Recently, my wife tore her rotator cuff placing a peck of peaches on the kitchen counter. In reality, that minor motion alone was probably not responsible for the tear, but it was the last straw. As a result, the prescribed remedy was a rotator cuff repair surgery. So, the surgery was scheduled to occur at a local surgical medical center.

The surgery was scheduled to last in the neighborhood of an hour. The surgery waiting room was equipped with a monitor board that showed the progress of each patient as they passed from Pre-Op to Operating Room to Recovery. My wife had passed to Recovery for some time, so I was anxious for the surgeon to come to the waiting room to provide a report on the surgery. I was one of only two individuals in the waiting room and a surgeon came through the surgical double doors looking for his patient’s family member. He was carrying several documents. He quickly looked around the room, then headed straight for me. I stood expecting a report, though this was not my wife’s surgeon. I just thought this was an intern or other member of the surgical team tasked with giving me the report.

He started the conversation by saying, “I’m sorry, but the surgery was a failure. We were not able to make the repairs we hoped.” He then proceeded to show me two pages of internal surgical photographs. In the first photo, he said something like, “You can see here that this tendon is completed frayed. Because of that, it was not able to be reattached it as hoped.” He went from photo to photo (9 photos per page) explaining what he tried to accomplish during surgery and why the damage was too extensive to repair. My heart sank and my pulse quickened. I started thinking, “So, what now? Are you thinking my wife might need a shoulder replacement?” I was not able to focus on what he was saying because of the concerns this news raised. Finally, I heard him say something about the meniscus. The MENISCUS? That is in the knee, not the shoulder! I looked closely at the photos and saw the patient’s name in the corner. Ah, this was not my wife’s surgeon or her photos or her failed surgery! Not that I was happy about the individual with the problem knee, but I immediately sensed a feeling of relief that my wife’s surgery likely was a success… which it was.

However, this “close call” experience made me realize again the importance of good, timely, and accurate situational communication (e.g., communication to address a specific need). In this event, I believe there were three key elements of communication that, if properly addressed, would have prevented the alarm raised when I first heard the words “…surgery… failure.”  Let’s look at each.

Everyone must clearly understand the purpose of the communication (e.g., What problem are you trying to solve?)

In my situation, had the surgeon clearly verified that I was the husband of his patient that just had knee surgery, I could have immediately stated that I was the wrong guy. Thus, he could have found the correct target for his discussion instead of assuming I was the one.

How often do we do that? We either assume that everyone understands the problem or situation in the same way or at the same depth as us. Yet, when we begin the communication by clearly stating the problem (or situation) and ensuring that everyone agrees, the discussion can be more directed, more efficient, and be more productive in achieving the goal. In my case, had the surgeon began by asking if I was the husband of __________ having rotator cuff repair, I could have quickly helped him find the intended target of the discussion.

So, don’t assume that everyone is at the same place regarding their understanding of the situation, the important context needed, or required outcome of the discussion. When in doubt, verify and re-confirm the purpose of the discussion.

Perfect facts along with extraordinary preparation do not guarantee great communication

The surgeon I encountered that day in the waiting room had an excellent command of the facts. He was personally involved in the surgery. He was the one that created the technical photos of the surgery. He was an expert. He had all the facts needed to make an effective presentation. However, the facts he presented were meaningless to me.

We often believe that if we have enough facts in hand, we can overwhelm any counterviewpoint in a discussion or conversation. Our facts will trump any argument that could be raised. Even when our facts are impeccable, they may not be adequate to impact or influence our audience. Facts are only tools that can assist our discussion. However, when they are misapplied or misdirected, they accomplish nothing.

So, don’t assume that facts alone will win the day. Unless you have properly applied the facts toward the problem you hope to solve, you have no right to expect an effective result.

An amazing communication style or presentation can be pointless if the discussion has no relevance to the audience

The topic, presentation style, facts available, and discussion of the facts within the context of the problem were handled perfectly by the surgeon I spoke with that day.

His discussion, though I did not understand much of it, was confident and supported by data. Everything he presented was perfect! Yet, the communication was of no value to me.

You see, unless your communication has relevance to the target audience, nothing else matters. Once I knew that his discussion was about another patient, not my wife, I lost all interest. I essentially heard nothing beyond that point.

We all experience the same thing in situational communication every day. Unless we can see that the discussion is meaningful to us, we feel that our time is being wasted. It is easy to see in any discussion (e.g., meeting) when individuals have “checked out”. In many of these cases, they check out because they feel the information is irrelevant to them and/or that their time is being wasted.

So, don’t assume that individuals that seem disinterested in a discussion or meeting are disrespectful. In many cases, their response is directly related to the level of application the discussion has to their own situation.