Mondegreens are words or phrases that listeners believe they've heard, but which weren't actually spoken or sung. They sound enough like what was said, and seem to make sense, but they're wrong. A cousin of the malapropism, which is a word or phrase mistakenly substituted by a speaker, the mondegreen is a word or phrase mistakenly substituted by the listener. Mondegreens  are sometimes very funny, but usually they're just dumb .
Some famous mondegreens were demonstrated by Gilda Radner, a member of the original cast of Saturday Night Live, an American television program. During the show's simulated news segments, Radner appeared in the role of "Emily Litella," an elderly woman with a hearing problem. As a "columnist," she opined endlessly about topics such as "endangered feces" (species), "saving Soviet jewelry" (Jewry), and "sax and violins on television" (sex and violence). Upon being corrected by the "news anchor," Ms. Litella would sheepishly exit, saying, "Never mind," which became a catch phrase of the day, and remains in use in the U.S.
But I digress.
A conceptual mondegreen is a concept that a discussion participant mistakenly substitutes for the actual concept under discussion. It seems to makes sense, but it's incorrect, causing the misunderstander to miss the point.
For example, in a debate about circumventing arcane accounting rules regarding capitalization of software development, a mondegreen might involve the rules about capitalizing software, instead of software development.
Here are two common situations in which conceptual mondegreens arise.
- Problem solving
- When trying to explain why a problem solution failed, if the available data is of poor quality or incomplete, formulating a hypothesis can produce conceptual mondegreens. A hypothesis is useful for devising experiments to gather better data, but instead of devising experiments, some people just accept the hypothesis as true. Then they commit the organization to a solution modified on that basis, which can be an expensive error if the hypothesis is incorrect.
- When solving A conceptual mondegreen is a
concept that a discussion participant
mistakenly substitutes for the
actual concept under discussionproblems, adopt candidate explanations as mere candidates. Devise experiments to reveal their shortcomings, rather than to confirm their strengths.
- Contending with adversaries
- Conceptual mondegreens also appear when we try to understand the behavior of adversaries such as political rivals, competitive companies, battlefield opponents, opposing sports teams, or products similar to our own. Observing the adversary's configuration and resources, we project its future behavior. But unlike problem solving, we can't always perform experiments to refine our conjectures. Still, we might try a feint on the battlefield, the playing field, or in the marketplace, to see how the adversary responds. That might provide useful data, but the best data comes from ongoing engagement with the adversary.
- Adopt the view that continued engagement with the adversary has value beyond possibly winning the competition. It also provides data that can resolve the conceptual mondegreens pertaining to the adversary's behavior.
When a mondegreen makes an appearance, it can indicate uneven distribution of knowledge or expertise within the group. Unless that's addressed, mondegreens will likely appear again and again. Top Next Issue
Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenXPPSrYmspCgtdUFSner@ChacKqhtBcLvMemQCAhGoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Conflict Management:
- Creating Trust
- What can you do when you discover that the environment at work is permeated with distrust? Your position
in the organization does affect your choices, but here are some suggestions that might be helpful to anyone.
- Untangling Tangled Threads
- In energetic discussions, topics and subtopics get intertwined. The tangles can be frustrating. Here's
a collection of techniques for minimizing tangles in complex discussions.
- Meta-Debate at Work
- Workplace discussions sometimes take the form of informal debate, in which parties who initially have
different perspectives try to arrive at a shared perspective. Meta-debate is one way things can go wrong.
- Historical Debates at Work
- One obstacle to high performance in teams is the historical debate — arguing about who said what
and when, or who agreed to what and when. Here are suggestions for ending and preventing historical debates.
- On Differences and Disagreements
- When we disagree, it helps to remember that our differences often seem more marked than they really
are. Here are some hints for finding a path back to agreement.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming March 21: Narcissistic Behavior at Work: III
- People who behave narcissistically tend to regard themselves as special. They systematically place their own interests and welfare ahead of anyone or anything else. In this part of the series we consider how this claimed specialness affects the organization and its people. Available here and by RSS on March 21.
- And on March 28: Narcissistic Behavior at Work: IV
- Narcissistic behavior at work is more damaging than rudeness or egotism. It leads to faulty decisions that compromise organizational missions. In this part of the series we examine the effects of constant demands for attention and admiration. Available here and by RSS on March 28.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenEPJOfEcVzMSBUnfEner@ChacZRqWaaPpiutEPNouoCanyon.com or (617) 491-6289, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
- Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.