Semantics

On July 26, 1945, the Allied leaders issued the Potsdam Declaration to the Empire of Japan - an ultimatum to surrender unconditionally or face “prompt and utter destruction.”

Upon receipt, the terms of the declaration were hotly debated within the Japanese government. Many leaned towards acceptance but felt the terms' language were vague about the future of Japan’s government, its military, and the Emperor. Foreign Minister Shigenori Tōgō urged Japanese Prime Minister Kantarō Suzuki to postpone a response until they heard if the Soviet Union would mediate term clarifications and revisions.

When asked by reporters, Suzuki stated the Japanese government’s reaction to the Potsdam Declaration was one of mokusatsu, or to “ignore with silent contempt.” Angered by the tone, U.S. officials carried out their threat and, within ten days, dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

This may be the most tragic misunderstanding in history.

In his press conference, Suzuki's use of mokusatsu, derived from the word for “silence,” was ambiguous because it has two distinct meanings. While the translation the White House received (“take no notice of; treat with silent contempt”) was technically correct, there’s a far less inflammatory interpretation of Suzuki’s response.

“No comment.”

While not universally accepted, the latter phrasing is widely cited as Suzuki’s intention. One could argue the fault lies with the translator, who at the very least could have noted there was a more benign alternative and allow the audience to decide which to use given the context. Alternatively, Suzuki could have been more clear that no decision had been made. The point, ultimately, is that poor communication has consequences.

Our word-choice rarely has history-changing reverberations. Still, it would be a mistake to underestimate the power of semantics in our day-to-day lives.

To be clear, this isn’t about appeasing the grammarians in your life. Mistaking a factoid as a random piece of trivia rather than a fact invented upon publication in printed media (fake news, if you prefer) is excusable if not relatively harmless.

What we really have to be wary of is the deceptively familiar. The space between a desire to agree and the terms with which we agree. To take an extreme example, there’s a significant gap between understanding the prefix “in-” (not) and the word “flammable” (easily set on fire) and understanding what inflammable means.

The danger lies in the words and phrases that we understand as individuals but rarely agree upon as a group. These lexical land mines require context (mokusatsu) or clarification because our definition may not be the same as who we’re talking to, even if they’re both technically correct.

Molly Graham, COO of Lambda School, refers to these as “black hole” words, appropriately describing how enigmatic phrasing can absorb multiple definitions, pulling them deep into obscurity. Using her example, a group of executives could agree a CMO is needed to boost marketing without ever defining what either of those terms means. Broadly, everyone in the room probably understands what a CMO does and what falls under marketing, but the odds are that they don’t have a shared understanding such that they’re all looking for the same thing.

Even terms like “always” can be misinterpreted if you’re not careful. In an HBR survey, 1,700 respondents were asked to attach probabilities to 23 common words/phrases. As you can see below, not everyone agreed that “always” means “100% of the time.” Likewise, a “real possibility” could mean anything from a 20% likelihood to 80%.

Why does this happen? In some ways, it’s a function of systems and rewards. Those who are punished for being wrong will retreat to the safe space of ambiguity, where there’s more wiggle room to adjust their commitment without adjusting their language. In other cases, it’s a lack of recognition that other perspectives exist. If your experience with marketing is television ads, why would you ever consider whitepapers and webinars?

The point is this: an agreement is easy; alignment takes work.

The former is an assent on direction, the latter on destination. When you catch yourself assuming what someone means when they say “probably” or questioning if “incremental” refers to the Business Unit or the Company, it’s time to ask for clarification.

There’s no such thing as stupid questions, just poor assumptions.