PART 03: THE TAO OF COMMUNICATION // TAKE IN

04 Understand the Context

Context can change meaning. I can’t think of any data, insight, or idea that could be fully understood and later used effectively without considering its context. Context can radically change our understanding or add depth and nuance to the problem and solution spaces. Without understanding the context, our understanding is shallow, and the following analysis is often incomplete. 

Understanding the context can be as simple as looking at the evolution of the data. Looking beyond the present moment gives us a broader perspective on the information we receive. This is crucial when we need to understand our status in relation to a goal and define our next steps. For example, if you look at the number of open tasks in your project, you won’t know if you are on track without knowing the target and the task completion rate. A single sample is insufficient for analyzing where we are and deciding what to do next. The trend and evolution of the data make the likelihood of meeting the target more evident.

Broadening the field of view and collecting additional pieces of the picture can reveal a deeper level of context. Sometimes, this requires exploring seemingly unrelated information that sheds new light on the content under discussion. Understanding the broader context inevitably influences subsequent analysis.

When discussing a risk, for example, the fact that another project has encountered the same risk in the past might help us understand its potential impact and define possible mitigations based on the organizational experience. At the same time, understanding your client’s expectations could completely shift the perspective. Maybe the client of the current project cares less (or more) about the potential outcomes of this risk. These two pieces of context help the team get a broader perspective. The context makes the risk less abstract and the discussion more concrete. 

As a Quality Manager, I had numerous conversations about tools and processes, during which everyone was keen to discuss the technical bits and bytes without any of us having a clear vision of the fundamental problem we were trying to solve. If this sounds basic, it’s because it is. Nevertheless, when the mission is defined in fuzzy terms like “to improve the way we…” it is natural to start thinking of a solution without first determining the context of the problem: What are we trying to improve? Are we trying to work faster? Are we aiming to improve the quality of the process outcomes? Do we need to address new use cases? Or maybe all of the above? Asking these questions (and insisting on understanding their answers) might seem like a detour. I prefer to think of them as climbing a hill to see the terrain before we start walking in a specific direction. 

Choosing the proper method to uncover context depends on the nature of the information and the situation at hand. On one end of the spectrum, there are cases where a simple set of questions can help us gain a good understanding of the context. For example, asking, “What prompted this decision?” or “What other alternatives were rejected?” can uncover critical details. In such cases, we can understand the context as part of the active interaction. In other cases, we might need to process historical data, previous reports, or information from people not in the discussion. Remember that a communication flow can include multiple activities and interactions. Therefore, taking such tasks offline and continuing the conversation when we understand the issue better is often the more effective approach. 

Some contexts are too intricate to be fully described or understood through brief questions or offline research. In such cases, a side discussion with one or more associates can be helpful. This approach is also more effective for uncovering deeper levels of context, such as interpersonal relationships or conflicting goals. 

Not everyone will initially understand our motivation for a deeper understanding of the context. Some might think we ask the wrong questions if they don’t see the immediate connection to the defined initiative. Others might feel we don’t trust the information they share or that their view is being challenged. The best approach is to address these potential pitfalls in advance by explaining our goal: “We just want to understand better.” When we ask questions with genuine curiosity, it shows. 

While broadening our perspective, we must ensure we don’t get lost or lose focus. As long as our questions help us understand the data, insights, and ideas shared by our associates, and as long as they promote the predefined initiative, we are on track. If we fall into a rabbit hole, which might be interesting but irrelevant to our current initiative, it is best to backtrack and refocus on the concrete goal of the communication flow.