WHEN INDICATION IS MISTAKEN FOR COMMUNICATION

The Journey Between What We Mean, What We Do, and What Others Experience

There is something I have observed on our roads that has stayed with me.

A driver wants to change lanes. The indicator goes on, and almost immediately, the vehicle begins moving across.

The driver has indicated.

But has the driver communicated?

At first, this may appear to be an ordinary observation about road behaviour. Yet, the more I reflected on it, the more I realised that it speaks to something much larger than driving.

It speaks to how we communicate, how we interpret one another, how we respond to the intentions of others, and how easily we confuse announcing an intention with having completed our responsibility.

An indicator communicates an intention to change lanes. It does not establish that the manoeuvre is safe, that sufficient space exists, or that the other road users have acknowledged the signal.

The driver must still observe the traffic, assess the available space and determine whether the intended movement can safely take place.

Switching on the indicator is not the end of the process.

It is the beginning.

And somewhere between that flashing light and the movement of the vehicle, I found a reflection about life.

1. THE INTENTION I CARRY

Every action begins somewhere.

Before a driver changes lanes, there is a decision to move from one lane to another. Before a parent corrects a child, there may be a desire to guide. Before a manager makes a difficult decision, there may be concern about performance. Before a spouse offers advice, there may be a sincere desire to help.

There is an intention behind the action.

Intentions matter. They help us understand the reasons people do what they do. They can reveal care, ambition, responsibility, concern and hope.

But there is a limitation we must acknowledge.

An intention can be perfectly clear to the person carrying it and completely invisible to everyone else.

The driver knows why they want to change lanes. The other road users do not automatically know the reason for the intended movement.

They see a vehicle, an indicator and a possible change in direction.

They must respond to what they can observe, not to an explanation that exists only in the driver's mind.

We sometimes forget this in our relationships.

We become frustrated because people do not recognise our good intentions. We wonder why our help was rejected, why our advice was misunderstood, or why a decision made with good intentions caused resentment.

Perhaps we have become so familiar with the intention inside us that we have forgotten how little of it another person can actually see.

The intention may be genuine.

But genuineness does not automatically make it visible.

2. THE INDICATION I GIVE

The driver switches on the indicator.

A signal has been sent.

But sending a signal and completing communication are not necessarily the same thing.

An indicator announces an intended movement. It does not give the driver permission to move into an occupied space. Nor does it guarantee that another driver has noticed the signal.

The driver must still observe and assess the situation.

This distinction follows us into everyday life.

We announce our plans. We explain our positions. We tell people what we intend to do. We make promises, issue instructions and offer assurances.

Then, sometimes, we proceed as though the announcement itself has settled everything.

I told you what I intended.

I explained my reasons.

I made my position clear.

What more was expected of me?

Perhaps the answer is that communication is not simply about making our intentions known. It also requires us to consider whether our message has been understood and whether our proposed action is appropriate to the circumstances.

A parent may say, "I am doing this for your own good."

A manager may say, "I am trying to develop you."

A spouse may explain, "I only wanted to help."

These statements may be sincere. Yet the recipient may still experience fear, humiliation, pressure or rejection.

The explanation gives us information about the intention. It does not, by itself, settle the meaning or impact of the action.

We must not confuse having something to say with having successfully communicated it.

3. THE RECEPTION I ASSUME

This is where the road observation becomes particularly revealing.

Some drivers seem to assume that once the indicator is on, the surrounding traffic will accommodate their intended movement.

But an assumption is not confirmation.

Another driver may not have seen the indicator. They may have seen it but be unable to create sufficient space. They may already be committed to a manoeuvre of their own.

The responsible driver must account for the actual conditions rather than proceed on the strength of an assumption.

How often do we make similar assumptions in our relationships?

We assume that our spouse understands our silence.

We assume that our children know why we are strict.

We assume that our colleagues understand what we expect.

We assume that our words have conveyed the emotion we intended.

We assume that because we have explained ourselves, the other person must now see things as we do.

Yet understanding cannot always be presumed.

The words may have been heard, but the meaning may not have been understood. The instruction may have been received, but the expectation may remain unclear. The intention may have been explained, but the emotional experience of the recipient may remain unaddressed.

This does not mean that every misunderstanding is the fault of the person communicating. People bring their own experiences, fears, expectations and interpretations into every conversation.

Nor can we guarantee that everyone will interpret us correctly.

But we can become more attentive to the difference between what we intended to communicate and what was actually understood.

Instead of asking only, "Did I explain myself?" we might also ask, "What did you understand me to mean?"

That question opens a door that insistence often closes.

4. WHEN UNDERSTANDING DOES NOT LEAD TO COOPERATION

Now let us consider the other side of the road.

Suppose the driver indicates, checks the surrounding traffic and waits for an appropriate opportunity to change lanes.

Another driver notices the signal.

The intention is understood.

Yet the other driver deliberately refuses to make room, even when allowing space would be safe and reasonable.

Perhaps the refusal comes from irritation. Perhaps the driver believes that nobody should be allowed to enter ahead of them. Perhaps it is simply stubbornness.

We now have a different situation.

The problem is no longer necessarily a failure to communicate.

The intention has been understood, but cooperation has been withheld.

This distinction matters because communication does not guarantee agreement, and understanding does not guarantee cooperation.

We encounter the same situation in everyday life.

A person expresses a sincere desire to reconcile, but the other person refuses to engage.

A colleague requests reasonable cooperation on a shared task, but another colleague deliberately obstructs progress.

A leader invites participation, but someone refuses to contribute because the idea did not originate with them.

A family member makes a reasonable request, but another person refuses simply to demonstrate that they cannot be told what to do.

In each case, the intention may be understood. The difficulty lies in the response.

But we must be careful.

Not every refusal is stubbornness. A person may have legitimate concerns, competing responsibilities or boundaries that deserve respect. Someone may understand our intention perfectly and still have good reasons not to cooperate.

We cannot demand that another person agree with us simply because we believe our intentions are reasonable.

Equally, we should not pretend that deliberate obstruction, resentment and unnecessary hostility do not exist.

Wisdom requires us to distinguish between a legitimate refusal and an unreasonable unwillingness to accommodate another person.

Communicating an intention does not entitle us to cooperation. But understanding an intention does not make every refusal considerate or reasonable.

Both the person requesting space and the person deciding whether to make room have responsibilities.

5. WHEN THE OTHER PERSON REFUSES TO MAKE ROOM

Let us return to the driver who has indicated and is waiting for a safe opportunity to change lanes.

The other driver refuses to cooperate.

What happens next?

The first driver may become frustrated. They may believe that their intention was reasonable and that the other driver's refusal was unnecessary.

They may even be right.

But does that give them permission to force their way into the lane?

Of course not.

The other driver's behaviour does not remove the first driver's responsibility to drive safely.

The first driver must continue observing the road, exercise judgement and wait for a safe opportunity.

This is where the observation becomes a powerful reflection on personal responsibility.

Sometimes we communicate clearly, act reasonably and still encounter resistance.

We may explain ourselves honestly and still be misunderstood.

We may extend a hand in reconciliation and still be rejected.

We may make a reasonable request and still encounter unnecessary obstruction.

We cannot control every response to our intentions.

But we remain responsible for our own conduct.

Another person's unreasonable behaviour does not give me permission to abandon my own responsibility.

This is not a call to passivity. It is not an instruction to accept mistreatment indefinitely or surrender every legitimate need.

It is a reminder that we must not allow another person's behaviour to determine the quality of our judgement.

We can challenge unreasonable conduct without becoming unreasonable ourselves.

We can establish boundaries without becoming hostile.

We can pursue our objectives without forcing our way through every obstruction.

And we can recognise when a situation requires us to change our approach, seek another opportunity or reconsider whether the intended destination remains appropriate.

The refusal to cooperate may change our circumstances.

It need not dictate our character.

6. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTENTION AND IMPACT

Now we arrive at another important part of the journey.

A driver changes lanes abruptly. Another road user has to brake sharply. Perhaps a collision is narrowly avoided.

The driver explains, "I indicated. I intended to change lanes."

That explanation tells us what the driver wanted to do. It does not change what the other road user experienced.

The action created a risk.

This is where intention and impact must be held together without confusing them.

Good intentions matter. They can help us understand why an action occurred. But the consequences of an action also matter, even when those consequences were not intended.

Consider a parent who believes that harsh criticism will make a child stronger. The intention may be to prepare the child for life's difficulties. Yet the child may experience the criticism as rejection.

Consider a manager who believes that public correction will improve accountability. The intention may be to protect standards. Yet an employee may experience the approach as humiliation rather than constructive guidance.

Consider a spouse who offers advice out of concern. The intention may be to help solve a problem. Yet the other person may feel unheard because what they needed was understanding rather than a solution.

In each situation, the intention and the impact tell different parts of the story.

We should not automatically condemn the intention because the impact was painful. Equally, we should not dismiss the impact because the intention was good.

Both deserve examination.

Intention helps explain an action. Impact helps us understand what that action has meant in another person's life.

When these differ, maturity requires more than defending ourselves. It requires the willingness to listen, reflect and, where appropriate, repair the damage or change our approach.

"I meant well" may be the beginning of an explanation.

It should not always be the end of the conversation.

7. WHEN FOUR STORIES MEET

There is a useful way to examine the journey from intention to impact.

What I intended.

What I communicated.

What I actually did.

What you experienced.

These four accounts may agree. When they do, communication and action are likely to be aligned.

But they can also diverge.

I may intend to encourage you, communicate in a way that sounds dismissive, act impatiently and leave you feeling inadequate.

I may intend to protect you, communicate my concerns poorly, become controlling and leave you feeling that your independence is not respected.

I may intend to create an opportunity, communicate my proposal unclearly, make assumptions about your participation and leave you feeling excluded.

The lesson is not that our intentions are meaningless or that other people's interpretations are always correct.

The lesson is that we must examine the entire journey rather than selecting the part that makes us look most favourable.

If I examine only my intention, I may overlook the message I sent.

If I examine only my message, I may overlook what I actually did.

If I examine only my actions, I may fail to understand the reasons behind them.

And if I refuse to consider your experience, I may never discover what needs to change.

The purpose of reflection is not to declare one account the winner.

It is to bring the accounts together so that understanding, accountability and growth become possible.

8. THE UMBRELLA BETWEEN INTENTION AND IMPACT

In Umbrellas of the Soul: Walking Through Life's Storms with Grace, the umbrella offers a way of thinking about how we move through difficult human experiences.

An umbrella does not prevent every storm. It offers shelter as we navigate conditions we cannot completely control.

Communication, too, can become a form of shelter.

Not because we can guarantee that we will never misunderstand one another, but because we can create space for clarification, patience and repair.

We can ask before assuming.

We can listen before defending.

We can explain without demanding agreement.

We can acknowledge impact without pretending that our original intention was malicious.

We can correct our behaviour without treating correction as an attack on our character.

And we can give other people room to express what our actions meant to them, even when their experience differs from what we intended.

This is not weakness.

It is a form of responsibility.

The umbrella does not require us to control the weather. It reminds us to pay attention to how we shelter ourselves and others while moving through it.

Perhaps the same principle applies to our intentions.

We cannot control every interpretation. We cannot guarantee every outcome. But we can take greater care with the way our intentions travel into other people's lives.

We can become more conscious of the space between what we mean and what we do.

And when that space produces hurt or misunderstanding, we can choose to build a bridge rather than another defence.

9. BEFORE YOU MOVE

The next time you prepare to change lanes, remember that switching on the indicator is not permission to move immediately.

Observe the traffic. Check that the manoeuvre is safe. Respect the available space. Proceed only when conditions allow.

And perhaps, when you next prepare to make a decision that affects another person, pause for a similar moment of reflection.

What am I intending?

Have I communicated it clearly?

Have I allowed room for the other person to respond?

What assumptions am I making?

Is my proposed action appropriate to the circumstances?

If the other person refuses to cooperate, have I understood their reasons, or am I simply labelling their response as stubbornness?

And if the outcome differs from what I intended, am I willing to examine my contribution to that outcome?

These questions are not designed to make every decision complicated. Nor do they require us to seek everyone's approval before acting.

They invite us to replace automatic assumptions with thoughtful consideration.

There will be times when we must act decisively. There will be times when others misunderstand us despite our best efforts. There will also be times when we discover that our approach was wrong, even though our intention was good.

There will be times when our request is reasonable but cooperation is withheld.

And there will be times when another person's refusal deserves to be respected.

Growth lies partly in learning to recognise the difference.

We cannot make every road predictable.

But we can become more responsible drivers on it.

A FINAL REFLECTION

Perhaps the problem is not that we indicate our intentions.

We need to communicate our intentions.

The problem arises when we mistake the signal for the entire responsibility, the announcement for understanding, or the intention for permission to proceed.

And sometimes, the difficulty is not that our intention was misunderstood.

Sometimes, it was understood perfectly, but the other person chose not to cooperate.

That possibility must also be acknowledged.

We are not responsible for controlling every response to our intentions. Nor are we entitled to demand that everyone accommodate our wishes.

We are responsible for how we communicate, how we act and how we respond when circumstances do not unfold as we hoped.

Our intentions deserve to be understood.

Other people's boundaries deserve consideration.

Our actions deserve examination.

And the experiences of those affected by our actions deserve to be heard.

The distance between these things is where much of our learning takes place.

So perhaps the lesson is not simply to indicate our intentions.

Perhaps it is to carry those intentions with enough awareness to recognise the people sharing our road, enough patience to wait when necessary, enough humility to change our approach when circumstances require it, and enough wisdom to know when cooperation is possible and when it cannot be demanded.

An indicator announces intention. Communication seeks understanding. Consideration makes room for others. Responsibility governs our actions. Reflection examines the impact.

And perhaps maturity is learning to bring these things into alignment without expecting the world to move according to our wishes.

Because the measure of our journey is not only where we arrive, but also how responsibly we travelled alongside others.

We may not control who makes room for us on the road. But we remain responsible for how we travel it.