by Steve Adubato, PhD

The recent flak over the “Race to the Top” education funding grant lost by the state of New Jersey involved accusations by some that then education Commissioner Bret Schundler “lied” to Governor Chris Christie about what he said—or didn’t say—to federal education officials in connection to the grant application.

However, from a communication point of view, our perception of someone “lying” to us is much more complex. With this in mind, consider the following circumstances where we believe someone may not be telling us the truth when in fact there is a different communication equation playing out:

--Jane is convinced her husband Jim is “cheating” on her, but when she confronts him about it, he denies it. Jane finds out later that Jim had gone out to dinner with an old girlfriend and was texting her. Jane says to him; “Jim, you cheated on me and then you lied about it. He responds, “Jane, you’ve got to be kidding me. I did not cheat on you. Yes, I went out to dinner with and texted Dawn. But, how is that cheating on you?” You see, it is all about different interpretations of “cheating”. “Cheating” to a wife may not be the same as “cheating” to a husband. The problem is, from a communication perspective, we use the same language and words to mean very different things, depending upon our frame of reference and the circumstance we find ourselves in.

--Sometimes language can be vague and creates communication confusion. Assume in a business situation you ask a colleague if he “followed up” on a particular item. He responds that he did. But, then you find out that the item in question slipped through the cracks. You confront him saying; “Bob, you lied to me. You said you followed up and you didn’t.” He responds; “Boss, you’ve got to be kidding me. I DID follow up. I called the guy twice and I left a message telling him when we needed the package.” The catch here is that certain words like “follow up” are again interpreted and acted upon in very different ways. To the boss, “following up” meant getting written confirmation that the supplier would deliver a specific package on a certain date. To Bob, “following up” meant simply attempting to communicate with the supplier and leaving a message. It’s not about lying, but rather, about being clearer in your communication and clarifying any misunderstanding before its too late.

--In a similar vein, when it comes to money, people in business often confuse the use of ambiguous language with someone being less than honest with them. Obviously we are all on a tight budget, so if a department director says; “Don’t spend too much on office supplies,” and you respond; “Sure, boss, no problem. I won’t.” Inevitably, what often happens is that you spend X but the boss expected you not to spend more than Y, and X is a lot more than Y. She says to you, “Joe, I TOLD you not to spend too much and you went ahead and ignored me. How am I supposed to trust you in the future?” You get the picture. The boss is questioning Joe’s integrity and ethics when once again it was a misunderstanding and a communication mistake that could have been avoided if the boss had said; “Joe, your limit is $1,000 for office supplies. If you feel you need to go over it, get my okay first.”

Like I said, lying is one thing. However, too often we assume that this is what people are doing when, in fact, communication screw ups and misunderstandings are more often to blame.