The true nature of 'not getting through' was not about comprehension

“I’m sure I explained it properly, so why isn’t it getting through?”

It has been over 15 years since I became a business owner, but this feeling still strikes me in unexpected moments.
I think I have carefully explained a policy in a meeting, only to receive an unexpected reaction from the team.
I think I have chosen my words carefully in a 1-on-1, only to see the team member’s expression cloud over.

In the beginning, I thought it was because my explanation skills were lacking.
I tried to be clearer, more specific, and more thorough.
I put effort into the materials, prepared analogies, andbelieved that if I just used enough words, it would eventually get through...

Or conversely, there were times when I thought it was a problem with the other person’s comprehension. “Why can’t they understand this much?”
“Even though I’ve said it so many times.”
To be honest, there were moments when I blamed the other person in my heart.

Even if I changed my explanation or the way I said things, the fundamental disconnect remained. Through repeating such experiences many times, at one point,I began to think that perhaps my own way of perceiving things was off to begin withI came to think.

It wasn’t a problem of how I conveyed it, nor was it a problem of comprehension.
If that’s the case, what exactly was happening?

The perspective of a Frame of Reference

When we break down the phenomenon of not getting through one step further, something becomes visible. That is the perspective thatperhaps I and the other person are not looking at the “same thing” in the first place.

Even if the words are the same, the scenery those words point to is different. If that is the case, no matter how much you refine your explanation, the fundamental gap will not be bridged.

In the world of psychology and communication theory, there isa concept called a “Frame of Reference”.

People do not receive the facts happening before their eyes exactly as they are. The experiences they have accumulated, the position they are in, the responsibilities they carry, and the fears they hold somewhere in their hearts.
Only through thesefiltersdo they give “meaning” to those facts.

In other words, even for the same event or the same words, what one sees there is completely different from person to person.
We are unconsciously only able to see the world through the lens of our own frame of reference.

This is not a matter of whether someone’s comprehension is high or low.
As long as we are human, I believe it is an unavoidable structure itself.

What is interesting is thatthis gap does not occur because one desires malice or a disconnect.
Rather, both parties are trying to be sincere in their own way.
The business owner says “I want to change” for the sake of the organization’s future, and the staff on the ground brace themselves to protect their daily operations.
Neither is wrong.
It is just that the places where they are standing are different.

That is precisely why I believe a gap in frames of reference is something to “know,” not something to “correct.”
Instead of denying the other person’s scenery,first stand on the premise that there is a different scenery from your own.That becomes the starting point.

The differences in scenery I have seen on the ground

While managing an organization of several hundred people, I have seen countless disconnects caused by this gap in frames of reference.

For example, when I, as a business owner, say “I want to change.”
That ispreparation for the future,and I intend it to bea positive intention for growth
.
I want to take action now so that the workplace will continue to function 10 years from now.That was the intention behind the words I spoke.

However, it can resonate completely differently with the staff on the ground. “Is the burden going to increase again?”
“Even though I’m already full up.”
It arrives as a premonition of that.
Even though it is the same word “change,”the time axis being viewed and the anxiety being held are completely different.

Or, take the phrase, "I want you to act proactively."
I say this out of a desire to trust the other person and believe in their potential. Giving someone discretion was intended as an expression of trust.
But from the recipient's perspective, it can sound like a demand with no clear answer, where they are told to find the right path without knowing what it is.
They aren't happy about being entrusted with something; instead, the anxiety of being left to fend for themselves takes precedence.

Another point, which serves as a reminder to myself as well, is that the higher one's position, the more omissions increase, assuming the other person will just 'sense' it.Due to being busy, one might give instructions without fully conveying the detailed background or intent.
I believe that the accumulation of such omissions eventually creates an organization where there is conversation, but no dialogue.

Furthermore, there was this situation.
When a manager told a team member, "I want you to report, communicate, and consult (Ho-Ren-So) more," the subordinate started sending detailed progress reports every single day.
However, what the manager really wanted was early consultation when the subordinate was unsure about a decision, not daily work reports.
Even though they used the same word, 'Ho-Ren-So,' one party interpreted it as a matter of 'frequency,' while the other issued it as a matter of 'timing.' The very definition of the word was misaligned due to their different frames of reference.

What these situations have in common is that no one has bad intentions.Each person is speaking sincerely from their own position and trying to receive the message sincerely. Yet,
simply because the scenery they see is different, misunderstandings arise.

The realization of insufficient alignment

As I encountered these situations repeatedly, I arrived at a realization.

The true nature of the feeling that "I am not being understood" is usually neither rejection nor indifference from the other party.
It is simply that the process of aligning each other's frames of reference was insufficient.

The idea that you can get through to someone just by stacking up 'correctness' was an illusion.
What does the other person value? What are they trying to protect? What are they feeling anxious about?
Without trying to know those things, even if you keep piling up your own correctness, the conversation will not click.
In fact, the more you assert your correctness, the more the other person becomes defensive to protect their own view, and the door to dialogue closes even further.

Before polishing the technique of conveying, go and peek at the other person's scenery.
I think I had the order wrong.

This is not as easy as it sounds.
To know the other person's frame of reference, you must first set your own correctness aside.Especially in the position of an executive or leader, one tends to unconsciously think that their own words are the final answer.
That is precisely why I feel the need for the habit of consciously re-questioning,
"This is how it looks to me, but how does it look to the other person?"

If you feel you are not being understood

If you are currently feeling the frustration of "not being understood" by someone, it may not be that your explanation is poor, nor that the other person's comprehension is low.

It is simply that you are both looking at different scenery.

If that is the case, there is only one thing you can do next.
Before stacking up your own correctness, try to imagine, just a little, from what standpoint the other person is hearing those words.
"What is this person trying to protect?"
"What are they feeling anxious about?"—try turning the question toward yourself.

That small marginis what I believe will make the dialogue move again.
Before you rush to add more words out of impatience that you aren't getting through, first stop and go peek at the other person's scenery.
It may look like a detour, but it might actually be the shortest path.

Minakku (Kei Minagawa)
Representative, Sunny Wing Group / ICF Certified Coach
Head of QanvasLab