Instructions: what “received” does not establish
Within the “Communication” programme at SHR — Swiss Human Resources, giving instructions raises a precise management question: how can operational understanding be checked without turning every exchange into a control procedure? Answering it requires distinguishing the clarity of a message from the evidence of understanding provided by its recipient.
What the literature establishes
Herbert H. Clark and Deanna Wilkes-Gibbs (1986, Cognition) examined how conversational partners jointly identify figures that are difficult to name. Their experiment shows that descriptions are developed and adjusted through interaction, rather than depending solely on the speaker’s initial precision. Understanding thus emerges as a joint accomplishment, not simply the result of effective transmission.
The mechanism: establishing sufficient understanding
Herbert H. Clark and Edward F. Schaefer (1989, Cognitive Science) propose a framework in which a contribution to conversation includes its presentation and its acceptance by the other person. This acceptance rests on evidence whose significance depends on the activity: an appropriate next action can be more informative than a simple acknowledgement. The criterion is not perfect understanding, but understanding mutually treated as sufficient for the current purpose.
The premature conclusion
One might infer that recipients should always restate every instruction. These studies do not, however, demonstrate that such a rule improves performance in every workplace situation. A cautious managerial application is instead to strengthen checks when ambiguity is plausible and the consequences of misinterpretation are significant. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot guarantee
An experimental figure-identification task and a framework for analysing conversation do not constitute an evaluation of handovers in banking or commodity trading. They provide neither a universal threshold for checking understanding nor an estimate of the errors that restating instructions would prevent. In practice, an accurate restatement can also conceal disagreement, an overlooked constraint or an inability to carry out the task.
A practical check in Genève
In a Geneva team working in private banking, an international organisation, luxury watchmaking or commodity trading, test a restatement process for two weeks on instructions involving a handover. The recipient states the expected action, the deadline and the condition requiring them to consult the sender again; the sender then confirms or corrects this account. Without recording confidential content, log the number of handovers tested and those in which the check reveals a discrepancy on at least one of these elements, then calculate the proportion. This rate measures discrepancies detected before execution, not errors prevented: it offers a verifiable starting point for developing communication practice. To go further: explore the Communication training in Geneva, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Communication in Geneva
- communication
- Geneva
- research
- training geneva