Approaching his line manager with an expectation of praise having gone the extra mile to complete a goal, a client was surprised to find his boss expressing her irritation and disappointment with the result. What he’d done was not what she’d asked for, time had been wasted, and an important task had now become a scarily urgent one. In talking to me afterwards my client expressed his frustration that his boss was always like this - notoriously hard to please and difficult to work for.

This story is one I frequently hear in one guise or another. As often, this will be from from the line manager’s perspective, and the frustration associated with the inability of direct reports to undertake simple requests and complete straightforward objectives.

​In such cases I will usually ask how sure they were that the other person understood what was being requested. Invariably they will be very quick to assure me that they were absolutely clear. When I then ask, as I usually do, how they know that, typical responses will be “well, it’s obvious what was meant” or “she said she was OK about it…” and so on. In virtually all situations there has been an assumption made – an assumption that you understand my request, or an assumption that I understand what you are requesting of me. Rarely it seems do we test these assumptions.

Giving vague or unclear directions is terribly common in organisations (and at home!) – we all do it. There are various contributory factors at work:

• Some personality types are less likely than others to be detail focused or specific in their language. For example, research suggests that introverted types tend to be more specific in their communication than extraverts, who tend to be more vague.
• We may be busy
• We may assume that what was meant was obvious

and so on. Our clear understanding of what we mean makes it difficult for us to assess the gaps or areas of possible ambiguity or misinterpretation for others.

Accepting vague or unclear directions or objectives is similarly common, and for similar reasons. In addition, if we have a personality that is keen to please, we may be more likely to accede to a request and to quickly get stuck in. If we are low in assertiveness we may be reluctant to ask for clarification or to admit we are unclear. Usually though, we make similar assumptions and assume we know what is meant.

So how can we overcome these assumptions and avoid the problems that result? What behaviours can we change?

1. When you are giving a direction or setting an objective, be as clear as possible – ideally use SMART* goals to shape your request.
2. Once given, check that the other person has fully understood what has been requested. Ask them to describe what they have been asked to do (in practice, this step often reveals gaps in understanding).
3. Encourage your staff and colleagues to challenge you for clarification of objectives and requests.
4. When you are being given an objective or direction, check with the person that you have fully understood what they mean. Repeat back what you understand has been communicated. Have them confirm or correct the request. If the person is vague use the SMART mnemonic to remind you of what you need to know.
5. If the person has a habit of changing the goal posts, follow up the last step with an email confirming what has been agreed – it will probably help them too to become clearer in their communication.

* SMART goals are those which are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound.

As coaches we all know about learning styles. That we all learn differently with varying preferences for visual, auditory and kinaesthetic (VAK) modalities. This is so well established that coaches, consultants and trainers have been using this model in organisations for years. By assessing the individual’s preferred learning style we can adjust the delivery of information and experience to best effect. Schools and colleges are also using learning styles in the classroom. My daughter came home from school a few years ago telling me about her own learning style which had been assessed that week with the rest of her year group. A subsequent evening event at the school, put on to help parents support their children through exam preparation, explained the importance of learning styles. The speaker, an external educational consultant and experienced ex-teacher, spoke authoritatively and convincingly about learning styles and related topics in what was otherwise a very valuable evening. I say ‘otherwise’ because learning styles is one of a number of supposedly factual models which has no basis in fact at all.

The VAK learning style (and indeed others) has been extensively studied for over 30 years. Writing in 2007, Baroness Susan Greenfield (an eminent neuroscientist) said “The rationale for employing VAK learning styles appears to be weak. After more than 30 years of educational research into learning styles there is no independent evidence that VAK, or indeed any other learning style inventory, has any direct educational benefits”. And yet we are still confidently and authoritatively rolling this stuff out to people. According to Susan Greenfield, the practice is “nonsense” from a neuroscientific point of view: “Humans have evolved to build a picture of the world through our senses working in unison, exploiting the immense interconnectivity that exists in the brain. It is when the senses are activated together — the sound of a voice in synchronisation with the movement of a person’s lips — that brain cells fire more strongly than when stimuli are received apart.”

In her 2010 book “Evidence-Based Training Methods: A Guide for Training Professionals,” Ruth Clark also challenges the use of learning styles, “The learning style myth leads to some very unproductive training approaches that are counter to modern evidence of what works…The time and energy spent perpetuating the various learning style myths can be more wisely invested in supporting individual differences that are proven to make a difference—namely, prior knowledge of the learner.” (Clark, 2010, p. 10)

It seems that when an idea develops some ‘pseudo-scientific feel’ behind it, it runs and runs. I know that many will (and do) argue that it doesn’t matter that there no evidence behind it and that the discussion and the focus it engenders is more important and valuable; that as long as people derive some value from it that’s OK. I come across exactly the same argument from those still using certain psychometric instruments, such as MBTI, for which there is little validity. Whilst I agree that thinking about how best we learn, or how best to assess various personality characteristics and styles is valuable and helps to broaden our awareness and understanding, I can’t believe that it is good professional practice to promote models and ideas with no factual basis to them at all. I think it is good practice for us all as professional coaches running ethical practice to ask rather more frequently “so, where’s the evidence?”, “is that true/accurate?”, etc.

When we select tools and models to use with clients let us at least take the time to establish their credibility and worth. If we chose to use a tool or model that has as yet, little or no known weight behind it, let us at least be open and mindful of that and not ascribe greater credence to it than is merited.