“
“I tell it like it is. I’m not good with the fluffy stuff.”
My client Jay, a no-nonsense executive with a direct communication style, believed that it would be a waste of time and inauthentic for him to offer words of affirmation or talk about feelings. Over the years, I have had many clients say something like this. Often they have received feedback that their direct style is appreciated for its clarity but also that they should temper their bluntness and cultivate empathy to build trust and relationships. They often interpret this guidance as a request to lather up their speech with meaningless (to them) platitudes, instead of just getting down to business. They value efficiency and view anything that does not relate to the task at hand as a waste of time.
This cut-to-the-chase style can work well, provided that the participants in the conversation are similarly task-focused, their roles are clear, they have a shared view of priorities, trust each other, and conditions are generally stable. Where the direct approach breaks down is when there are differences of opinion, unclear roles and responsibilities, uncertainty, lack of trust, or differing social/emotional needs. When you enter the realm of so-called “difficult conversations,” in which there is a potential conflict or emotional charge, the “fluffy stuff” is not just a nice-to-have.
In every conversation, there are two channels: content and emotion. (There is also a larger context of organization, culture, hierarchy, but that’s for another discussion.) In most interactions, content (information, ideas, objectives, tasks, roles and responsibilities) is on the surface of the communication. Emotion, including our feelings about the content and how we feel toward the other person, lies beneath the surface, varies in intensity, and is often unstated (in literature, the “subtext”); but this unseen channel is always present and can be a powerful determinant of how a conversation or negotiation will proceed and conclude. Failure to tune into this channel—to listen and attend to emotions—can actually inhibit communication. Skillful, direct communicators address both content and emotion. The following scenarios illustrate the power of tapping into emotion.
Cross-functional collaboration. Jay bumped up against the limits of content, clarity and logic in his communication when he found himself at odds with Raj, a fellow exec. He had drafted a slide deck for a board presentation, and Raj was refusing to co-present one particular slide. After several back-and-forths on Slack debating the correctness of the slide (content channel) and getting nowhere, Jay tuned into the emotional channel. He noticed that Raj’s responses were short and seemed defensive, if he felt under threat.
Jay picked up the phone and said, “Raj, it’s starting to feel like we’re at odds here, but we’re on the same side. We both want to make a credible and accurate presentation to the board. I’m open to your input and I need your help to get this over the finish line. Can you help me understand what parts of the slide you’re concerned about?” While Jay was unaccustomed to delving into emotional territory with Raj, everything he said was true, so although he felt awkward, there was nothing inauthentic about what he said. Raj shared that he was troubled by the characterization of one piece of data, which led him to doubt the whole slide. Jay showed him the source data and agreed to make minor changes in the slide. They ended on a positive note. Afterwards, Jay said to me, “The key was taking time to connect on a human level, understand what he was worried about, address it, and reassure him that I was not trying to make him or his team look bad.”
Responding to feedback. Leticia, a business school student, also learned the importance of tuning into the emotional channel. She received feedback from her classmate Sue, who worked in finance, that a joke Leticia had made about “finance bro culture” had made Sue feel uncomfortable. Leticia’s initial response focused on addressing the content and defending herself, but did not acknowledge Sue’s emotion. “It was just a joke. I’m sorry you took it that way,” Leticia said, explaining that her comment hadn’t been directed at Sue. “It was a generalization, and I wasn’t talking about you. Besides, you, yourself have complained about ‘bros’ at your old job.” But this non-apology did little to soothe Sue’s hurt feelings.
With coaching, Leticia tried again, this time addressing the emotional impact on Sue before trying to talk about content or explain herself. “I can see that my generalization hurt you and I’m sorry—that was definitely not my intent. I can imagine that it’s complicated being a woman in finance. I’d like to understand more so that I don’t trip up again.” When Sue felt that her experience was being valued, she was open to resolution.
There’s nothing more inefficient than poor communication. When we talk about “getting to the heart of the matter,” we are not just referring to addressing the core idea, but also to the emotional core. So if you observe that a conversation or negotiation is stuck, notice if you are staying on the surface, circling around the same content and not making any progress. Try changing the channel and dropping down into feelings—your own and the other person’s. You may find that if you can connect to the other person on the level of emotion, you move the conversation forward and reach resolution.