I can’t recall exactly when I first heard the phrase, but there was a time when the” tip of the iceberg” referred to one small part of a ginormous problem. Icebergs, as you know, are just large, misshaped ice cubes that float around the North and South Atlantics, and that push the happy buttons of some oceanographers. Hollywood made a movie about the demise of the Titanic, the largest and most luxurious cruise ship of its day, which failed to complete its maiden voyage in April, 1912 because of an encounter with one.

It’s fairly well known that only 10% of an iceberg is visible above the surface. The rest is below the water line. So, the “tip of the iceberg” is that relatively small bit that can be seen. So the phrase was intended to be a metaphor for the idea that the part of a problem that was being discussed was a very small part of the whole.

Somewhere along the line, the meaning changed 180 degrees. Instead of it being a bad thing, it became a good thing as well, such that it referred to a small part of anything that was huge: a problem, a concept, an idea, etc. This has done nothing to help interpersonal communication in organizations, one of the biggest problems at work today.

If you read my free newsletter, you’ll know that each month I talk about a topic from the perspectives of both managers and employees. Each group has its own ideas about how to interpret any particular issue, what should be done about it, and what one group’s behavior means in terms of the other’s.

Misunderstandings are a fundamental part of the challenges of interpersonal communication. But, what can be worse than using a phrase that refers to two diametrically opposed ideas? This is not as simple as using a word such as “cleave,” for example, where the context makes it easy to discern what is meant. The interchangeability of the phrase “the tip of the iceberg” makes its use refer to a negative interpretation as easily as a positive one. And that means that before any discussion takes place about the problem, concept or idea, the parties involved already have conflicting opinions about what happens next.

In order to resolve interpersonal communication problems at work, the parties concerned must at least agree on the meanings of the terms they intend to use, and that means that neither can assume that the other knows the definitions.

This is a ginormous topic of its own, so I’ll leave you to think about it yourself. I hope that you will return to this blog and leave your comments.

Bruce Hoag, PhD, CPsychol
Work Psychologist