How do communication expectations impact culture?
Recently, I was in a work meeting where I was sharing a proposal for a project. My audience was a more senior person in the company.
At the conclusion of my proposal, the listener shared constructive feedback that I said the word, ‘like’, too often. I know this is something I need to work on, especially when nervous or tired, so I thanked the listener for their feedback.
I then followed up requesting feedback on the substance of the proposal.
The listener’s comments were minimal, and they seemed dismissive of the proposal. However, I was confident the idea was sound, timely, and a solid investment of resources. (Note: I’ve since received confirmation that my hunches on this front were right! Woo!)
I offered to explain the proposal again, assuming my verbal tick had been distracting. But we ran out of time, and that was that.
* * *
At first, I was disappointed in myself for not delivering a more compelling presentation.
After reflecting a bit more, though, I became increasingly disappointed in the listener for not trying harder to engage in the substance of the proposal, despite my verbal tick.
This prompted me to think about the expectations we put on speakers versus listeners in different contexts.
Erin Meyer captures this idea wonderfully in her book, The Culture Map. Although Meyer’s book frames the issue of communication expectations in terms of national and ethnic cultures, I think the idea applies equally to groups within organizations where power dynamics are at play.
These power dynamics may play out across hierarchical (senior / junior) or business (revenue generating / business support) lines.
For example, you could imagine a senior leader overlooking the ideas of a more junior colleague because the ideas were not presented clearly. Or you could imagine an internal client dismissing legal advice from in-house counsel because the advice is not succinct or action-oriented.
In both cases and others like it, strong presentation skills often act as a proxy for competence and elicit confidence that both the speaker and the substance of what they’re communicating is reliable and legitimate. Weak presentation skills, on the other hand, may indicate to the listener that the speaker is less competent or trustworthy. As a result, the listener—rightly or wrongly—may be dismissive of both the speaker and the substance of what the speaker conveyed.
The power dynamics may also arise as a result of bias—including unconscious bias—relating to gender, race, or other group identities.
For example, you could imagine a male listener disregarding the recommendations of a female speaker who exhibits negatively-associated, stereotypically female speaking characteristics (e.g., high pitched voice, filler works such as ‘like’ or ‘um’). Or you could imagine a white female listener dismissing the constructive criticisms delivered by a black female speaker whom the listener associates with harmful stereotypes (e.g., ‘angry black woman’).
Note that in these examples and others like it, the listener is statistically more likely to be more senior within the organization than the speaker. In other words, these power dynamics around communication could deeply undermine diversity, inclusiveness, and equity in the workplace.
* * *
All of this has led me to wonder how often we disregard what someone is trying to convey because the ideas are poorly communicated.
So who’s right?
As a norm, should listeners be expected to cut through poor presentation and grasp the substance of what’s being conveyed?
Should the norm be to expect speakers to do a good job of presenting in the first place?
Or should both speakers and listeners be expected to try their best?
I tend to think the third option is a healthier starting place. After all, the point of communication is, well—to communicate! And since successful communication is a two-way street, why not hold both sides to it?
Admittedly, there may be circumstances where placing heavier expectations on either the listener or speaker is appropriate. For example, a person whose job it is to provide the daily intelligence briefing to the U.S. President may rightfully be expected to have strong presentation skills. Or a team leader facilitating a brainstorm session should arguably be expected to try to grasp all the ideas shared in the session, whether or not the ideas are well-formulated or articulated clearly.
Along those lines: I wonder how effective providing transparency around these types of communication expectations may be? I tend to think transparency would be helpful, though I worry that exclusive or otherwise harmful communication-related behaviors could quickly become the norm under the guise of ‘providing transparency’.
What do you think?
Is there a right answer? How have you navigated these dynamics in your organization?