BSCOM/310T: Interpersonal Communication Week 4 Discussion – Managing Ego and Building Trust

3.1Verbal Communication
Verbal Communication Transcript
Download Material
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Identify the most common organizational contexts or circumstances within which verbal
communication is appropriate.
2. Understand the core strategies for effective verbal communication and how to apply
them in an organizational setting.
3. Examine advanced strategies to enrich basic verbal communication and understand
how their thoughtful execution can improve interpersonal relations within the workplace.
4. Appreciate verbal communication as a shared responsibility executed between sender
and receiver with significant individual and organizational consequences.
5. Identify common environmental and personal barriers to effective verbal communication
along with practical, adaptable solutions.
Say It with Words
Figure 3.1: Phone call.
Photo by cottonbro via Pexels.
“Hello, Smith & Blake Pharmaceuticals; how may I help you?”
“Yes, hi. May I speak to Yvette, please? I’m trying to catch her between meetings.”
This simple dialogue demonstrates verbal communication in the workplace, sharing
information with words. In this particular scenario, Natalia, the sender, has chosen a
phone call to channel her message rather than write and send an email. Though
verbal communication can indeed be spoken or written, we’ll examine spoken word
and its nonverbal complement in this topic and address written communication
separately in Topic 4.
Let’s begin by identifying the various organizational contexts for verbal
communication as a way, first, to understand when speaking is appropriate and,
later, how those words can be articulated to the best effect.
3.2Making a Case for Context
Making a Case for Context Transcript
Download Material
The circumstances within or around which communication is to take place matter. Is
speaking appropriate or would a different medium be faster, clearer, more engaging,
or more efficient? Why exactly is speaking advantageous? To answer these
questions, we must consider context since misappropriated communication can cost
individuals and organizations irretrievable time and money. The following settings
are a few of the most common circumstances that call for verbal interpersonal
communication within an organization.
Figure 3.2: Workplace conversations.
Photo by fauxels via Pexels.
Circumstance and Setting
Work meetings: Whether a project lead or company executive, it’s imperative that team
members, constituents, creatives, and collaborators meet to discuss shared work. Meetings
can provide a space to speak and listen, brainstorm ideas, note progress, define goals, and
troubleshoot problems. Instead of batting emails back and forth among individuals resulting
in inevitable signal-crossing, a meeting can be a one-stop shop that quickly gets everyone
on the same page at the same time. Calling a meeting without an agenda or meeting daily
out of habit rather than necessity risks burnout and frustration as members start believing
their time isn’t valued and their ability to get the job done independently isn’t trusted. Work
meetings are often as effective or ineffective as their leaders.
Presentations: Sales pitches on the road, on the phone, or before the board are the go-to
way to sell an idea. Complement words with visuals and nonverbal communication, and the
chances of selling any idea, product, or story increase three-fold.1 Generally, presentations
are best executed as verbal exercises employing clear and simple language. 2 When
presenting new technology or an idea with moving parts, a visual or in-person delivery
permits demonstration; something that is impossible in writing. Presentations are not
exclusive to marketing and sales teams but serve to characterize the behavior of anyone
articulating persuasive speech in intimate, small group, or large group settings.
Conversations: Typical workplace conversations present opportunities for individuals to
discuss projects and ideas, air concerns, build rapport, achieve clarity, and much more. We
tend to use “conversations” to refer to more casual interpersonal relations, but they can, and
do, take place within more formal settings, say business negotiations or a working lunch. As
our introduction alluded to, context—including the audience—for conversations is critical.
Are you communicating with a superior, colleague, friend, or stranger? And in what setting?
While you may converse with each of these people, your environment and circumstance will
dictate the style and strategy of discourse.
Interviews: Writing tests or subject examinations can sometimes be components of an
interview process, but interviews are largely spoken engagements. We’ve discussed their
prevalence and relevance in the workplace, but, here, we’ll highlight the value of information
gained about a person simply by speaking. A hiring manager can learn a lot about a
candidate’s personality and potential by engaging him or her in conversation. A paper
résumé, by contrast, can only describe—to a limited extent—what an applicant has done. It
cannot adequately reflect that person’s charisma, eloquence, warmth, and passion. These
traits can only be exhibited through speech and, ideally, in person.
Of course, this list of circumstances is far from comprehensive and is intended only
as an introduction to the number of spaces within an organization where verbal
communication is most common.
3.3Strategies for Success
“Wow, what a day, huh? If only those jokers would stop being lazy and start doing
their jobs, things could start getting done around here.”
If you’ve ever made the mistake of saying something about someone to that very
person, you probably appreciate the importance of knowing your audience. “Who am
I speaking to?” should be the first question you ask yourself when speaking to
someone. The second two questions will flow from there: “What words should I
choose?” and “How should I say them?” We’ll discuss all three.
Audience
If our example above is any indication, who we’re speaking to is integral to delivering
effective verbal expression. Are you addressing a toddler or a parent? Your boss or
a friend? A new client or an established associate? An audience of two or two
hundred? Determining who receives a message dramatically affects its discourse
and potential impact. The following statements demonstrate how a simple invitation
to eat varies according to the receiver:
Figure 3.3: Eating.
Photo by Daria Shevtsova via Pexels.
Toddler: “Hungry?” [Smiling and gesturing hand to mouth to mimic eating.]
Parents: “Would you like something to eat?”
Boss: “Excuse me, Mr. Thompson, would you have time in your schedule to meet for
lunch?”
Friend: “Wanna grab a bite?”
New client: “We have a little extra time; can I interest you in some lunch at the café?”
Established associate: “It would be great to catch up over lunch. Do you have a few
minutes?”
Audience of two: “We have time to grab some sandwiches if you like?”
Audience of two hundred: “According to our schedule, it’s lunchtime, folks. Please
join us in the lobby for refreshments.”
Now, imagine standing at the podium in front of two hundred people and asking Mr.
Thompson to join you for lunch. That hardly seems appropriate. Audience matters.
But it matters for more than one’s physicality or age. Inherent in a label, be it friend,
boss, or new client, is familiarity, formality, interest, status, and understanding. And
it’s the acknowledgment of these characteristics that ultimately determines the verbal
strategy for approaching a given audience.
Friendly: When speaking to a friend, the presumption is that the receiver thinks or feels
similar to the sender. It thus becomes a sender’s strategy to speak in a way that reinforces
shared beliefs. By strengthening allegiances, the relationship can grow in trust. Inside jokes
are a prime example of speech that is exclusive to friends.
Apathetic: When the audience shows little to no interest in a message, the speaker must
first convince them that it matters. A sales rep meeting with a potential client must find a
way to express why he or she should care enough about a product to buy in. Well-told
stories or anecdotes are effective tools to drive connection.
Uninformed: Not knowing isn’t the same as not caring. An uninformed audience simply
doesn’t have the knowledge or experience to understand a message. In this case, a
speaker must educate the audience before proposing an idea or course of action. During an
onboarding process, new hires might require extra direction from their trainers and
colleagues.
Expert: Opposite of uninformed, an audience of experts is knowledgeable about a given
topic. A speaker in this case must deliver a message that reflects his or her respect for their
experience. This interaction is common in an organization with strong hierarchical
designations. Subordinates would be well served to address their boss by presuming he or
she is an expert.
Hostile: A hostile audience carries an unsympathetic perspective relative to the speaker or
their message. This attitude demands a speaker’s empathy and tolerance. Anytime a
speaker must deliver unfavorable news, he or she might assume hostility so as to approach
speech firmly, but also gently.
Armed with this information about an audience, a speaker can prepare. In the event
of an impromptu exchange, the prep work happens in the moment as one walks
toward a colleague or passes an executive in the cafeteria. In the event of a keynote
address or presentation, a speaker will have time to research an audience’s interest
level and experience so as to tailor a message that fits.
What We Say
Figure 3.4: Jack’s Coffee Shop.
Photo by Quang Nguyen Vinh via Pexels.
If we look again at the above invitations to eat, it becomes clear that the audience
determines appropriate word choice. Even within an audience—between one friend
and another, for example—a speaker’s word choice may differ out of respect for
another’s culture, beliefs, gender, or age. In all circumstances and for all audiences,
a speaker should strive for clarity.
Research reveals 43 percent of workplace communication fails as the result of a lack
of clarity, including the use of jargon.1 We discussed the latter as a barrier to
listening in Topic 2. For example, a supervisor shouldn’t use abbreviations or
shortcuts with a new hire unfamiliar with company systems and who might feel
uncomfortable admitting ignorance on day one. This miscommunication could
instead be easily avoided if the supervisor were to identify the audience as
uninformed and choose words appropriately. Likewise, exercise caution when using
acronyms in internal and external communication. It is unfair to assume the intended
receiver will understand the acronym’s meaning.
In a general sense, language choice should respect and reflect the receiver’s
presumed knowledge and vocabulary, attitude, and status within a given
environment or context. A casual, “Let’s meet at Jack’s!” shouted between
colleagues across a packed breakroom might raise alarm to Jack’s girlfriend or
confusion for the recent hire new to the neighborhood. If each had adequate context,
they would have known Jack’s was a coffee shop. As it was, the speaker failed to
regard the environment’s lack of privacy and used jargon that resulted in
misunderstanding.
How We Say It
Figure 3.5: Paralinguistic factors.
Photo by Allan Mas via Pexels.
Often, it’s not what we say, but how we say it that matters most, especially when
communicating feelings and attitudes. Research shows:
•
55% of a message comes from body language (especially from movements
of the small muscles around the eye which can convey shock, disbelief,
doubt, or disgust)
•
38% of a message comes from tone of voice and paralanguage
•
7% of a message is conveyed by the words we use2 3
Only seven percent of message meaning is delivered and understood through
spoken words. Tone of voice accounts for more than a third of message meaning,
conveying anger, frustration, disappointment, sarcasm, confidence, affection, or
indifference. And that doesn’t include additional paralinguistic factors, like stress and
volume, rate of speech, accent, and pronunciation. Yet it’s the speaker’s body that
delivers more than half of a message’s meaning, including the use of facial
expression, eye contact, gestures, touch, and posturing, many of which were
described in Topic 1.
When these nonverbal factors complement speech, they can reinforce the meaning
and validity of the message. However, when inconsistencies occur—for example, a
colleague who mumbles to the group that she’s finished a task but avoids making
eye contact—doubt is cast and a need for questions, clarification, or reassurance
may arise. This mismatch happens with unintended frequency in the course of
interpersonal workplace communication. Much of our body language and gesturing
is expressed subconsciously as behaviors learned through experience, conditioning,
or by example. By becoming aware of these mechanisms and choosing to employ
them with intention and empathy, one can transform an otherwise flat, inarticulate
message into a meaningful and dynamic expression.
3.4Advanced Verbal Communication Strategies
Previously, we assigned the receiver with the responsibility to provide feedback as a
way to respond to, question, reinforce, or clarify a sender’s message. But by providing
feedback, the receiver becomes the sender, thus facilitating a dialogue where the
roles of receiver and speaker continue to be exchanged. In this way, the advanced
strategies of reinforcement, questioning, and clarification become a shared
responsibility for both parties engaged in verbal communication. It’s important to note,
too, that they aren’t simply reactionary. Reinforcement, questions, and clarification
also start conversations.
Let’s take a look at how each of these strategies, articulated effectively, enrich
communication, collaboration, and relationship building in the workplace.
Reinforcement
Reinforcement helps build rapport and is arguably the leading communicative force in
fostering positivity in an organization. By expressing encouraging words combined
with complementary nonverbal gestures, a sender shows his or her support. Support
doesn’t necessarily have to come as agreement; it can be purely an outward
acknowledgment of having heard a message and understood its meaning. The simple
act of reinforcement strengthens the bond of trust and respect between sender and
receiver, encouraging the conversation to continue with greater transparency and
vulnerability. Consider the following examples:
Figure 3.6: Listening to Deja.
Photo by Christina Morillo via Pexels.
“Gosh, I’m really unsure about this. I haven’t heard from my client in weeks.”
“Don’t worry, Deja. Your track record speaks for itself. Trust your instincts.”
“Deja, I can’t help but notice how concerned you look. Whatever it is, I’m here if you
want to talk about it.”
In both of these scenarios, reinforcement is being offered to Deja. In the first example,
it was offered as feedback to Deja’s own verbal communication. In the second
example, it was offered as a way to initiate a conversation. (Technically speaking, this
is feedback, too, but in response to Deja’s nonverbal communication.) By verbalizing
reinforcement, Deja’s colleague has assured Deja that she heard her complaint,
sympathizes with her plight, and encourages her to continue doing good work. The
colleague’s final offer, “I’m here if you want to talk about it,” takes reinforcement a step
further by offering her time and compassion as a refuge for Deja’s unease. This style
of articulated reinforcement, especially if given consistently, goes a long way to
building trust that will feature prominently in any future collaboration.
Unfortunately, reinforcement isn’t always expressed with good intentions. A selfishly
motivated employee may encourage a colleague to apply for a position at another
company, not because he or she would be a good fit, but because they don’t get
along. To accomplish this, the employee might disingenuously reinforce the
colleague’s aspirations by telling him what he wants to hear instead of the truth. A
colleague who senses this behavior would be wise to seek alternate sources of
feedback and employ the questioning and clarification techniques that we’ll describe
next.
For the sake of this course, let’s consider reinforcement to be exceptional behavior,
and focus instead on the following essential skills needed to communicate positive
reinforcement successfully.
Speak words of affirmation. Encourage dialogue, trust, and cooperation.
Show support. Nonverbal gestures and postures reflect warmth and openness.
Inspire confidence. Allay fears and insecurities.
Communicate interest. Reflect messaging by stating observations and feelings.
Don’t interrupt. Listening is a silent but powerful reinforcement.
“Increased self-confidence, bolstered by continuous reinforcement, inspires people to do their best
work, enabling them to make a dramatic and lasting impact on the organization.”
–Bruce Jones, Senior Programming Director, Disney Institute1
Questioning
Without questioning, interpersonal communication can fail. It is the primary method
used to gather information, express curiosity, gain clarity, solve problems, and achieve
understanding. Questions help us learn and are an essential ingredient in almost all
verbal communication. Context, tone, and audience once again feature prominently as
guides to choosing the type of question appropriate for a given situation and how to
ask it. Let’s consider a few of the reasons or motivations for asking questions:
Figure 3.7: Questioning.
Photo by Olya Kobruseva via Pexels.
To understand: Ask to learn or obtain information. “When is the meeting?”
To clarify: Ask to dissolve confusion. “Did she say 2:00 or 2:30?”
To express interest: Ask to encourage further detail or explanation. “So, what was your
biggest takeaway?”
To gain personal insight: Ask to get a sense of the speaker’s character, ideals, or beliefs.
“Did you like his presentation, or did you find it unsettling?”
To test: Ask to challenge a message’s validity or sender’s knowledge. “Who published that
finding?”
To assert control: Ask to gain the power over the speaker. “Are you sure about that?”
To probe: Ask to gain perspective and deeper thought. “But what if you look at it from the
other side?”
To include: In a group setting, ask another participant his or her thoughts. “Gerry, what’s
your opinion?”
Having determined a reason to question, a speaker must then decide which type of
question and what tone of voice will be most effective to achieve that end. To
demonstrate how this is done, we’ve adapted a question regarding seating to suit the
following five questioning types.
Closed Questions
“Did you find a seat?”
Closed questions require little more than a single-word response. They are
intentionally limiting. Whether answering “yes” or “no,” selecting an option from
multiple choices, or identifying a specific piece of information, the response is not
designed to offer information beyond what was asked.
Advantages: quick, easy answers
Disadvantages: no details; discourages further dialogue
Open Questions
“How do you feel about sitting for a while?”
Open questions, also known as “generative questions,” require more than a “yes” or
“no” answer and reflect a desire to learn. Open questions can inspire creative,
thought-provoking responses and are popular during interviews when a hiring
manager seeks to learn more about a candidate’s character, attitudes, and
perspectives.
Advantages: more information; triggers continued dialogue
Disadvantages: time-consuming; potential for surprise or unease
Note: Each of the following question types is considered a subcategory of open
questions.
Loaded Questions
“Was that a good seat?”
Loaded questions, also known as “leading questions,” carry an agenda and
pigeonhole a receiver into answering a certain way versus more generally. In our
example, the receiver can only address the question as whether the seat was good or
bad. If asked, “How was your seat?” the receiver would be at liberty to express his or
her opinion without anticipating judgment.
Advantages: persuasive technique
Disadvantages: limited in scope; can curtail conversation
Rhetorical Questions
“Who could ever find a seat in this chaos?”
Rhetorical questions do not intend for the receiver to respond with an answer.
Instead, they are designed to promote thought and often create humor. Used in a
sales pitch, a rhetorical question like, “Who wouldn’t want that?” may aim to establish
common ground between the speaker and audience to build rapport and trust.
Advantages: thought-provoking; engaging
Disadvantages: potentially distracting; may not resonate with audience
Funneling Questions
“Where are you sitting? Is there a seat open next to yours? May I join you?”
Funneling questions are those asked as a series of questions with the end in mind.
The speaker will start with one question, the answer to which leads to another
question and so on until he or she achieves a desired answer. In our example, the
speaker’s ultimate goal is to sit next to the receiver. Ask the question directly, and the
speaker might seem too forward or the question pointless if a seat is not available to
take.
Advantages: transparent logic; polite
Disadvantages: requires time and uninterrupted train of thought
Process Questions
“What are the advantages to choosing an aisle seat?”
Process questions, while open in nature, are narrower in scope. This type of
question requires the receiver to arrive at an answer—be it a list of examples,
reasons, or conclusions—based on opinion born from life experience.
Advantages: gain personal or circumstantial insight
Disadvantages: answers not always based in fact
Of course, just because a speaker has considered his or her own needs when asking
a question doesn’t guarantee the receiver will respond favorably. A speaker’s tone of
voice can be misleading. Answers can include lies or partial, unrelated, or distorted
responses or can avoid the question altogether.
To improve the likelihood of receiving a true and favorable answer, a speaker should
consider timing. (Is this the right time to ask this question?) A speaker should also
consider a possible response. (How will the receiver feel when he or she hears this?)
Anticipating potentialities can help the speaker form questions in ways that will less
likely upset or unsettle the receiver and will more likely be answered comprehensively.
Clarification
Figure 3.8: Clarification.
Photo by fauxels via Pexels.
Clarification is often the impetus for questioning as a listener desires to sort unclear
messages or glean more information than what was spoken. Didn’t hear what was
said? Ask for it to be repeated. Didn’t understand what was said? Ask for an
explanation. Couldn’t make sense of what was said? Ask for the message to be
rephrased. As for question styles, points of clarification can be closed or open.
“Did you say Thursday or Friday?”
“When you said you worked on it, what did you do exactly?”
“I caught the first part, but could you please repeat the steps after that?”
The goal of questions like these is to obtain the correct information. Exploratory
questions, on the other hand, can invite a speaker to divulge more details or explain
his or her feelings in a way that may not have felt necessary or comfortable if the
listener hadn’t expressed interest. Again, these questions can be open or closed.
“How did you feel about that?”
“Why do you think he reacted that way?”
“Do you tend to go that direction?”
“Were they laughing at you?”
But rather than always appearing as questions, clarification can often be delivered as
a statement fed back to the speaker:
“Tuesday, four o’clock, side door. Got it.”
“You stopped to see the client before grabbing lunch, not after.”
“You said you didn’t like the idea, but he did.”
Each of these statements exemplifies a listener’s attempt to communicate to the
speaker without judgment that his or her message has been heard correctly and
understood. This can also be accomplished through summarization. Appearing at the
end of a conversation rather than interjected, a summary offers a succinct review of a
message’s details and invites an opportunity for both parties to confirm any details and
to discuss next steps.
Inherent in the process of seeking and gaining clarification is active listening. A
speaker who has delivered a clear and succinct message can often ascertain whether
a receiver seeking clarification is doing so because he or she genuinely did not
understand or because he or she was distracted and not paying attention. The latter
can frustrate a speaker, diminish trust, and discourage further communication. But to
justify this reaction, a speaker must first have accepted responsibility for thoughtfully
crafting and delivering the message. Clarification is less likely to be necessary if the
sender is considerate of the noise potentially compromising a receiver’s ability to
understand. As a rule, it’s best to speak clearly, briefly, and concisely. Consider the
following example:
“Hey Kara, let’s review the case together at Starbucks.”
In this scenario, Kara should not be to blame for any confusion she feels; the speaker
delivered a message void of important information. If they have two cases together,
which one will they review? And if there are two Starbucks nearby, which does the
speaker have in mind? Anticipating this need for clarification, the sender could have
been more explicit:
“Let’s review the Morrison case at the Starbucks on South Street and Main.”
There are instances in which asking for or implying the need for clarification may not
seem appropriate. Perhaps a listener doesn’t want to interrupt or fears revealing
ignorance or inattentiveness. In a workplace environment, where one person’s actions
or contributions affect the whole, it is best never to draw assumptions. Imagine
yourself as the speaker. Would you rather a listener request a few minutes of your
time to answer questions or submit a project that gets rejected by a client because he
or she hadn’t understood the instructions? Asking for clarification is a win for
everyone.
3.5Complicating Factors
Even the best intended and articulated verbal communication can fall victim to
environmental and personal barriers. There are too many to examine here in
adequate detail, so we’ve highlighted three more contemporary challenges reported
to cause significant organizational discord and inefficiency.
Generational Bias
Figure 3.9: Texting.
Photo by Thom Holmes via Unsplash.
“OMG. Another meeting? Couldn’t he just text me the address? He’s so old-school.”
Evolving technology and real-time communication tools are complicating verbal
communication in the workplace. More organizations are opting for social media
events instead of flying representatives cross-country to meet clients. In-house,
colleagues are choosing to message each other instead of walking across the office
to talk. Research reveals these choices aren’t being made out of convenience, but
for personal comfort as more tech-savvy communicators move to avoid the
vulnerability of in-person conversations. It’s a trend that draws a generational divide;
nearly a third of millennials report using instant messaging at work every day,
compared to only 12 percent of baby boomers.1 The resulting disconnect
compromises respectful, effective communication between the two groups, a
solution for which has become the topic of an increasing number of workplace
communication trainings.
Technological Trends
“Doesn’t she get it? I’m stuck in my house writing emails all day. Would it kill her to
do a quick Zoom call?”
Simultaneously, research shows a trend in the opposite direction—from text to
voices—with organizational members preferring to engage in virtual conversations
for circumstances in which they might normally have defaulted to email. 2 When the
COVID-19 pandemic forced entire organizations to work from home, video
conferencing apps saw a record 62 million downloads.3 Isolated workers wanted to
see each other irrespective of the medium’s ability to communicate a message
effectively. This new norm contradicts many of the traditional justifications we’ve
asserted for using verbal communication. Moreover, while research reveals email is
still the most commonly used method of communication within an organization, it is
not the most popular.4
Figure 3.10: Writing emails all day.
Photo by Vlada Karpovich via Pexels.
Status and Power
“But she told me you were going to ask the boss and get back to us on new
protocol.”
Hierarchical structures have long divided organizations by ranking employees
according to seniority, experience, or pay grade, prompting individuals along the
spectrum to feel more or less powerful, important, or valuable. Any status difference
perceived between a sender and receiver in this environment tends to challenge
verbal communication between the two, not least of all for the liaising manager
standing in the middle. Research indicates 49 percent of all directors say their direct
reports frequently experience the fallout of poor communication.5 Not only are
messages easily miscommunicated when repeated from memory, but in the case of
a manager relaying information between senior executives and junior employees,
both have different communication styles, strategies, and preferences to consider
that require a manager to adapt speech and perceived tone appropriately.
Having addressed a few common environmental barriers challenging verbal
communication, Table 3.1 lists common personal barriers and practical remedies.
Table 3.1
Barriers
Remedies
Values/beliefs
Prejudice bias
Practice active listening to understand others’ perspectives,
values, and frames of reference.
Frame of reference
Perception
Fear
Recognize that others will express jealousy, fear, and
prejudice; practice tolerance to foster understanding.
Jealousy
Isolation
3.6Summary
Seek honest feedback and practice empathy.
Figure 3.11: Verbal communication.
Photo by ELEVATE via Pexels.
At the heart of verbal communication remains the goal to share information. By
tailoring a message and its delivery to reach a particular audience within a given
context, a sender will improve his or her chances of being understood. When
senders’ efforts fail, or even when messages are delivered effectively and with
thoughtful articulation, it’s the receiver’s responsibility to actively listen and provide
or seek feedback to gain clarification, express curiosity, or reflect comprehension.
Considerable variables exist within the verbal communication equation to challenge
even the best of exchanges, so empathy, patience, and humility may be the most
adaptable tools to avert avoidable communication crises and contribute to a
cooperative, interactive workplace.
Topic 4: Written Communication—Leaving Permanent Messages
4.1Written Communication
Written Communication Transcript
Download Material
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Identify the primary purposes for organizational writing and understand how various
contexts and circumstances dictate its form and function.
2. Learn perfunctory strategies for effective organizational writing with special attention to
tone, clarity, and simplicity.
3. Consider written communication as an unselfish means to serve specific audience
needs across platforms on behalf of an organization’s brand.
4. Appreciate the value of written communication as it reflects an organization’s reputation
and adaptability and affects its bottom line.
5. Identify perennial barriers to effective written communication, specifically those that
evolve from the medium’s advantageous qualities, along with practical solutions aimed
at minimizing negative consequences.
Writing for Keeps
Figure 4.1: Eating at 8:00.
Photo by Ari Alqadri via Pexels.
“Tara, where are you? Weren’t we meeting at eight?”
“I’m at the restaurant; I thought we were eating at eight!”
If you’ve ever played a game of telephone—repeating the same message person
after person to see if, by the last player, the relayed message in any way resembles
the original—then you know how easy it is for speech to be forgotten, manipulated,
misinterpreted, or misunderstood. Even the best listener attempting to repeat a
conversation is likely to omit significant words, tone, or context and unintentionally
misrepresent the essence of the original exchange. That’s the downside of oral
communication—once spoken, words and the way they’re delivered are subject to
our imperfect memories. Written communication, on the other hand, records words
for the ages. In this topic, we’ll discuss when and how writing is used to best effect in
the workplace, examine its various forms, and observe the ways digital mediums
continue to alter professional writing’s form and function.
4.2Writing with Purpose
The first time we communicate with an employer, it’s often in writing, whether as an
email, cover letter, résumé, LinkedIn InMail, or social media post. Once hired, no
matter one’s particular job responsibilities, the need to write continues. But when
exactly? And for what reason? Written communication, not unlike verbal
communication, should be employed relative to context. We should ask the following
questions: What is my purpose for communicating? Who is my audience? Is writing
the appropriate medium? And if so, what should be written and how? To begin tackling
these questions, let’s first identify the two most common purposes for organizational
writing and the circumstances around these that dictate approach and impact.
Figure 4.2: Workplace writing.
Photo by RF._.Studio via Pexels.
Rhetoric
Workplace writing is often persuasive. A résumé is designed to entreat a hiring
manager for an interview. Written feedback is intended to encourage a change in
behavior. A storyboard illustrates a proposed plan of action. A company handbook is
distributed to influence employee behavior. No matter the focus, if persuasion is the
goal, a writer must consider the following circumstances:
Audience
Who will read the writing? Whether addressing a colleague or boss, client or
subordinate, a writer’s intended audience will define his or her tone, style, and content.
With these terms to be detailed later, let’s first consider the two main audience
subtypes: formal and informal.
Formal audience: Writing for a formal audience requires special attention be paid to the
receiver’s status, title, or position. This is often achieved through a professional tone and
mode of expression, namely, sophisticated vocabulary, salutations, and syntax. Formal
writing tends to occur within a vertical relationship, for example, a team lead writing to a
client, a new employee to his supervisor, or a creative writer to an executive. Given the
respect inherent in such vertical relations, formal documentation often involves some
amount of planning.
Informal audience: Writing for an informal audience, or friendly acquaintances, requires
less, if any, decorum and can be causal or colloquial in nature. The emphasis is on the
relationship between sender and receiver, not status or organizational protocol. It’s the
written equivalent of casual attire. Informal writing tends to reflect a horizontal
relationship, for example, coworker to coworker or team member to team member.
Stakeholders
Who will be affected by written communication and its content? It’s not a given that the
audience will also be the object of whatever rhetoric is expressed. To be considerate
of a document’s impact is to reflect within it a certain level of empathy and decorum.
No matter a particular stakeholder’s claim, all organizational writing can be
categorized in two ways: internal and external.
Figure 4.3: Organizational writing.
Photo by RODNAE Productions via Pexels.
Internal communication: The way a company usually shares information with its
employees. In-house writing can include memos, emails, employee handbooks, job
descriptions, or instant messages. Affected parties within an organization could be written to
in a way that assumes organizational standards and protocol, thus avoiding a need to
provide explanation or context.
External communication: The way a message generally leaves an organization to reach
public or private clients and customers. Examples can include news releases,
advertisements, proposals, emails, or websites. Writing to impact external parties requires
making fewer contextual assumptions.
Context
What is the background from which the message is being composed? Without context,
written communication lacks a proper foundation for understanding. If you’ve ever
received an email and asked yourself, “Why am I receiving this?” or “What is this
about?” then you can appreciate the role of context. It’s important to keep in mind that
writing, as a mode of communication, is better suited to certain contexts than others.
Here, we’ve highlighted three such contexts:
Facts vs. feelings: Words, on paper or on screen, have to work exponentially harder to
communicate feeling without a human speaking them. You may recall that 93 percent of a
message comes from body language and paralanguage, leaving only 7 percent to come
from words. This is why written communication is often better suited for fact-based
exchanges, those void of feeling and/or loaded language. In an organizational context,
sensitive information can be made to feel insensitive if delivered through an impersonal
medium.
Detailed instructions: Unemotional, impersonal documentation is well-suited for written
communication. In a workplace, there is often a need to share procedures and design,
organizational rhetoric, and feedback. All these goals require time to express and digest
and could easily be forgotten, lost to distraction, or misunderstood if relayed as an oral
comprehension exercise. A detailed job description, for example, even if recited to a new
employee, is best spelled out in words for the employee to sign and date. If not, a “he said,
she said” situation is almost guaranteed to occur as a symptom of selective listening or
noise pollution. Since written communication lives beyond a particular moment in time,
documented information can be kept for future reference.
Asynchronicity: Unlike spoken words, written communication is asynchronous, in that it is
not immediate and occurs over time. Think of a text message sent but not received until
later in the day, a letter posted internationally that arrives weeks later, or a magazine that
waits to be read in an office lobby. Writing not only buys a sender time to flesh out ideas
and improve the chances of being understood but also requires a receiver to spend time
reading for comprehension. But since time in an organization is often short, even the most
complex ideas should be expressed with brevity, clarity, and simplicity. This should also be
followed up with in-person conversation.
User-Centered Writing
Persuasive writing moves to affect the reader by prioritizing the sender’s needs,
and user-centered writing does so by putting the audience’s interests first. It’s a take
on rhetorical writing that is focused on the expectations, goals, circumstances, and
needs of the reader. Writing with this purpose requires the sender to consider specific
qualities of his or her audience. Here are a few qualities the sender should think about:
Figure 4.4: User-centered writing.
Photo by The CEO Kid via Unsplash.
Expectations: What information do readers anticipate receiving? What details or
explanation can be provided to readers to appeal to their expectations or prepare them for
something unexpected?
Characteristics: What is the audience’s relationship to the content? Is the reader
participating in the formulation and execution of an expressed process? Will stakeholders
read what’s written? Or is the audience a mixture of both? What position(s) does the
audience hold within the organization? And how might this affiliation affect their
expectations about a given message?
Goals: What are readers planning or hoping to accomplish? What should be included in a
document so that its readers receive the information they need?
Context: For what type of situation do readers need this information? How can writing
empathize with an audience’s circumstances so that information is both practical and
functional?
Generally speaking, user-centered documents must be readable with accessible, wellorganized information that is easy to understand, prioritizing functionality over any
emotional engagement. Simply put, it’s not personal. Consider, for example, a sales
rep who needs information regarding a product’s warranty; he or she will want this
information delivered efficiently and expediently. The product specs must be easily
accessible so the rep can find, read, and understand the information well enough to
relate back to an inquiring client in a timely manner.
Not all inclusive, rhetorical, and user-centered documentation captures the two
primary purposes for an organization’s written communication. But even if a purpose is
understood and an audience and stakeholders identified, how a message is written
remains critical to its effectiveness.
4.3Writing for Effect
Tone, clarity, and simplicity are the pillars upon which effective organizational writing
is constructed. Attach the wrong greeting, and you risk losing your audience’s
respect. Omit important details, and you prompt more questions than you’ve
answered. Belabor the point, and you drive your audience to distraction. Each of
these pillars rests upon a foundation of professionalism—since a writer might always
be advised to consider the possibility that an informal message to one’s colleague
could get in the wrong hands. As a basic rule of thumb, effective written
communication should mirror the same level of decorum and attention to detail that
is expressed in face-to-face communication. Let’s learn how it’s done.
Tone
“Hey Cassandra! Heard your having some doubts after our convrsation last week.
Whatsup with that? Shoot me a text if you wanna talk.”
Imagine you’re Cassandra. Is that an email you’d expect from your boss? Probably
not. Aside from its casual style, the email is littered with misspellings and slang,
neither of which would reflect a level of respect for the reader and her place in the
organization. It’s a simple illustration of the way tone—if ill-considered or poorly
executed—can undermine a writer’s goal and intention. Tone conveys feelings in
writing, and without the support of body language it can easily be misread and
misinterpreted by a reader who lacks adequate context.
To avoid a mishap like our example and effectively incorporate tone into
organizational writing, consider the following strategies:
Figure 4.5: Think about the purpose for writing.
Photo by cottonbro via Pexels.
Align tone with circumstance. Pause first and think about the purpose for writing—after
all, writing affords a sender time. Will the document relate bad news? If so, an excited tone
would not be appropriate. Does good news for some mean bad news for others? If so, it’s
best not to take on a celebratory tone to recognize a company-wide profit if several people
were laid off to help the cause. Want to raise company morale? Then use a tone that
reflects your own enthusiasm.
Be authentic. Authenticity is best reflected in straightforward, honest writing. In a nutshell,
don’t aim to impress; just be yourself. This can be achieved by choosing simple, inclusive
language. Avoid complicated vocabulary or inside jokes that might confuse a reader or
make him or her feel excluded. The aim is to create a tone that breeds familiarity and trust.
If sensitive information drives a particular issue, it may be worth employing writing as an
invitation to a face-to-face meeting.
Manage emotions. Rarely does it prove advantageous to wear one’s emotions in the
workplace. Lose your cool with a colleague? The whole office probably heard you.
Celebrate a little too hard? Your colleague who just lost a deal feels even worse now.
Writing is similar. When emotionally charged, your written tone, unless kept in check, is
almost guaranteed to betray your feelings. If you have time to spare, take a few minutes to
decompress.
Choose formality. When you’re not sure what tone to take—perhaps you’re new to a job or
have lost perspective on protocol as a seasoned staffer—default to professional. While
contemporary workplace writing seems to reflect a decreasing formality with friendlier, more
direct styles, a writer’s duty to respect an audience’s experience and position is never
excused.
Clarity
Let’s meet after lunch.
Who is this?
Rashid.
Oh! Meet where?
In the breakroom.
Any particular reason?
This exchange could have been avoided if Rashid had written his first message
more clearly:
Hi, Flo. This is Rashid. Would you have time to meet after lunch to practice our pitch?
Say, 2:00 in the breakroom?
Clarity is an essential feature of any workplace communication, if for no other reason
than that time is money. Every error or critical omission wastes time due to the
resulting corrections, clarification, and questions, none of which would be necessary
if the writer had taken time at the front end to compose his or her message
thoughtfully. Clear writing is a sign of clear thinking. The following strategies can
help:
Figure 4.6: Workplace communication.
Photo by Tofros.com via Pexels.
Keep it short. Brevity is better for any and all business correspondence. Include only
relevant facts with concise information. Composing a document with the audience and
stakeholders in mind should help dictate an appropriate tone that will reinforce the intended
purpose for writing and ensure its effectiveness.
Follow the rules. Use proper grammar and punctuation and spell words correctly. There is
no excuse for errors, especially with the likes of Grammarly and spell-check tools to help
when writing online. Avoid abbreviations; when in doubt, spell it out. “Good grammar is
credibility,” says CEO of iFixit, Kyle Wiens. “For better or worse, people judge you if you
can’t tell the difference between ‘their,’ ‘there,’ and ‘they’re.’”1 How well a document is
written is a reflection of the level of professionalism at the organization from which it
originates. Read good writing to become a better writer.
Edit ruthlessly. Shorten, delete, and rewrite anything that does not add to the meaning of a
piece of writing. Spending hours on a document can cause a writer to lose objectivity. Set a
composition aside for a few hours before returning to reread it for a fresh edit. Another’s
perspective can be constructive, too.
Simplicity
Have something to say? Say it. But keep it simple. Synonymous with clarity,
achieving simplicity means trimming the fat—deleting extra material to make a
message clearer, more direct, and easier to understand. Thomas Jefferson put it this
way: “Never [use] two words where one will do.”2 It’s a myth that writing more makes
an author sound smarter. The following strategies will help you say more by writing
less:
Stick to the facts. Maximize impact by writing what you know to be true and leaving the
rest to conversation. For example, send an email to confirm meeting time, date, location,
and bulleted agenda. The more controversial or complex the meeting topics, the more likely
words on paper will misrepresent them. Negotiations are best reserved for discussion.
Be sensitive about sensitivity. If the purpose for writing is to address personal or
emotional issues, save the details for a conversation and use writing to invite the reader to
the conversation as a courteous heads-up. Written communication is permanent—a factor
we’ll discuss at greater length later—and if intercepted or lost, can’t be unread or its details
redacted. Write conservatively and include only what you wouldn’t want someone else to
read.
Think like the reader. If you received a document with six pages of instruction, would you
do a Google search to find a more succinct version? No one, not even a reader with time to
spare, would opt for more detail than is necessary to understand an issue or accomplish a
task. Choose simple words like “rise” instead of “ascend.” Use active, not passive voice in
short sentences, and avoid the fluff of adverbs like “very” and “rather.” Don’t ramble or
repeat yourself. The reader doesn’t care. Write with empathy, not your ego.
4.4Why Writing Skills Matter
“A grammar test? But writing isn’t in my job description!”
This is a common question asked by an increasing number of recent graduates.
Those seeking jobs as creatives and who have been raised on social media, texts,
and TikTok sometimes fail to see a reason for writing well if writing isn’t part of their
particular job. The truth is, the more organizations have gone online, the more
writing has dominated the workplace—just not the letters, faxes, and dossiers of
yore. Nearly three-quarters of employers report taking written communication skills
into account when hiring, treating it as the third most desired overall skill after
leadership and teamwork.1 And why not, when poor writing is estimated to cost the
United States an estimated $400 billion every year?2
“Good grammar is credibility, especially on the internet. In blog posts, on Facebook statuses,
in e-mails, and on company websites, words are all you have. They are a projection of you in
your physical absence.”
—Kyle Wiens, iFixit CEO3
Writing is the primary way business gets done. When it’s done well, business is done
well, too. Those new to the workplace would benefit from keeping a professional
tone in their writing. Here are five of the biggest reasons why:
Sales: Marketing and proposals play a major role in sales. If written poorly, these materials
cast an undesirable light upon an organization. An unprofessional and incompetent first
impression can spell disaster. Written effectively, however, targeted marketing reflects an
organization’s credibility and capability, helping it generate more leads that drive sales.
According to research from Harvard University, Boston University, and University of
Michigan’s Ross School of Business, training in soft skills, like writing, can produce a
“256 percent net return on investment.”4
Figure 4.7: Written communication skills.
Photo by Ivan Samkov via Pexels.
Brand reputation: Without customer interactions and foot traffic, organizations have
become increasingly dependent upon web traffic and user experience. That means any
written content—websites, social media and email blasts, and digital reports—must be top
quality to ensure positive engagement. Professionally written customer service emails,
product feedback, or transactional documentation, though appearing more often under the
radar, are no less critical. Any lost customer is lost revenue.
Innovation and productivity: If emailing is the most popular way to communicate in the
workplace, it may not be surprising to learn workers spend an average of more than five
hours every day checking it.5 That’s the most time organizational employees spend on any
one daily activity. Better writing skills, therefore, demonstrated through clarity, concision,
and simplicity, can streamline considerable portions of their days. That efficiency helps
avoid miscommunication, facilitates collaboration, inspires innovation, and raises
productivity.
Leading by example: Culture comes directly from leadership; set a good example and the
rest will follow. It’s not a new mentality, but it is an effective one, and writing skills are not
exempt. Written communication remains an important component of quality management.
When managers write clear emails and work instructions, employees are better able to
produce desirable results. It also has the trickle-down effect of improving employee relations
since clear managerial communication promotes collaboration.
Retention: Given the benefits of quality writing in an organization, it’s surprising more don’t
provide or encourage writing training. When quality writing is prioritized, management can
help employees hone their writing skills, which prepares them to rise in the organization.
This strengthens an organization’s internal talent pipeline, prompting many to stay.
Moreover, an investment in such a valuable, transferrable skill promotes loyalty since
employees are more likely to work hard for organizations dedicated to their professional
development.
Previous
4.5Written Communication Challenges
Written Communication Challenges Transcript
Download Material
Like the adage “Too much of a good thing,” certain advantages to written
communication can quickly become disadvantages. It’s convenient to be able to
archive old emails, but what if it’s discovered they’re ripe with damaging information?
They can’t be destroyed. In fact, even if deleted, they live forever on the company
server or cloud.
Permanence is one of many challenges that organizations face regarding written
communication. Thanks to the internet, every organization has a potential minefield
of issues to handle, with even the slightest misstep presenting a potentially crippling
set of new problems every day.
We’ll address several of these issues and how adaptation and flexibility have
become essential skills to navigating effective ways forward.
Permanence
Figure 4.8: What goes on the internet.
Photo by Karsten Winegeart via Unsplash.
“But that picture of us partying was on my personal account. Plus, I took it down
years ago.”
“We found it. And we can’t hire a liability.”
What goes on the internet, stays on the internet. Something posted online can’t be
deleted. Even if you press delete, it’s etched into digital stone. For an organization,
that means anything on a website behaves like a tattoo, casting a permanent
shadow on its reputation. Any misspelling, negative review, dysfunctional link,
miscommunication, or outdated mission statement—all existing as text—cannot be
unread by those who read or screen-captured it before it was removed. And if a
spoiled reputation isn’t damaging enough, managing internet content is costly.
Seventy-eight percent of companies have a team of one to three content marketing
specialists to keep eyes on an organization’s digital presence and
performance.1 And that’s not all. Even when companies aren’t putting out fires,
digital platforms require constant updates. Otherwise permanent content must adapt
to socioeconomic trends and audience preferences. A website with fresh content is
crawled more often, and without getting too technical, more views mean more
business. To support this, every year, organizations are investing in better IT
infrastructure, with 76 percent of businesses planning long-term IT changes for
2021.2
Many Hands
“And, send . . . No! No! No! Undo! Undo! I didn’t mean to reply all!”
Written communication has the advantage of being mass-produced for broad
distribution. Write one document, text, post, comment, review, tweet, or
announcement and with a single click send it to an audience of billions. Writing is
generally one sender to many receivers, while verbal is generally one sender to one
receiver. Because of this feature, writing allows organizations to reach more
customers. It also exposes them to privacy and security breaches. The greater the
audience scope—whether intended for internal or external audiences—the greater
the chance documentation can get into the wrong hands. Written information, as a
result of its permanence, is a privacy risk. This is why “worldwide spending on
information security . . . products and services exceeded $114 billion in
2018.”3 Perhaps it’s a decent defense in light of the $6 trillion the world is estimated
to have spent on cybercrime damages by 2021. 4 On an individual scale,
organizations must work to communicate employee privacy rights and provide
security training programs as a proactive means for encouraging best practices.
Alignment
“I read online last night that we’re merging. When was somebody planning on telling
us?”
An organization’s internal and external written communication must be in sync, or
business breaks down. In a few words, misalignment breeds distrust and
dysfunction. When an organization’s public relations department releases
information to the media that affects the organization, the employees of that
company need to know first. A brand can spread a company’s reputation far and
wide, but if marketing strategists change the mission and values that uphold that
brand’s signature, and if an uninformed sales representative delivers outdated
information, any momentum that brand had achieved would be lost. Discrepancies
tarnish credibility and discourage customers. Written communication, on any
platform, is a direct reflection of one’s personal or professional brand. In other words,
you are what you write. Sure, internal and external communication each have
distinct and specific goals, but aligning the two wherever possible facilitates
organizational cohesion and synergy. Brand consistency reflects reliability and raises
revenue an average 33 percent.5
Time
Figure 4.9: Time.
Photo by Oladimeji Ajegbile via Pexels.
“Who has time to read all these emails, let alone answer them?”
As an asynchronous medium, written communication has the advantage of
transcending time—time to compose, time to read, and time to reply. In an ideal
world that could mean lingering over a long-awaited email, thinking about a response
in the evening, and sending a reply the next day. But nothing is so ideal in business,
not when employees receive an average 121 emails every day.6 With too much to
read and not enough time to read, it’s no wonder one or twelve get missed or left
sitting in drafts unanswered. But even diligent responses bear a cost to an
organization since it can take employees 20 minutes or more to get back on task
after an email interruption.7 It’s yet another reason to be discriminating in how we
communicate. Can an email be spared by a quick phone call or a chat before the
next meeting? If writing is best, apply the strategies we’ve discussed in this topic to
keep it simple. The reader will thank you.
Flexibility as a Solution
“I’m right! I know what the client wants. You’ve got to trust me on this.”
If writing is inherently stubborn—once published it can’t be altered and what’s signed
is final—then writers must learn to exercise flexibility in its creation. It’s the proactive
solution to intractability. How is it accomplished? Flexible writing means achieving
one’s purpose by responding to a given context, even, and especially, when
experiencing pressure from time or budget constraints, interpersonal discord, or
heightened expectations. Of course, this isn’t easily done since communication
styles often become more rigid when under stress. But this is exactly when it’s most
critical to put reader, user, and stakeholder first for the betterment of the whole.
Personal style might be strong and research well-documented, but if the project lead
has it from the boss to take a different approach, that’s what must be done. Written
content, branding, and messaging reflect a company’s image, not its ghostwriter. An
organization lives on the reputation of its written copy. Copy is its voice.
4.6Summary
Figure 4.10: Written communication overwhelms.
Photo by Vlada Karpovich via Pexels.
Written communication is so much more than pen to paper. It overwhelms inboxes,
servers, and clouds everywhere. In fact, cloud services, which offer organizations
enhanced stability and security as digital filing cabinets, captured an estimated 83
percent of organizational workloads in 2020.1 This is significant because clouds
represent an organization’s digital existence, and text rules the digital world, filling
search boxes billions of times a day2 and driving search engine optimization
(SEO) value to direct traffic around the web.
As physical interactions become less possible between employees in an
organization, writing will become the default voice of the people. And if words are to
represent not just individuals but also entire organizations, then it’s more important
than ever to learn how to efficiently articulate appropriate tone, respect, organized
thought, perspective, and flexibility to generate impactful written communication.
BSCOM/310T: Interpersonal Communication
Week 4 Discussion – Managing Ego and Building Trust
Materials
Textbook
Vannella, E. (2021). Interpersonal communication. MyEducator.
Tools
MyEducator®
Respond to the following prompt in a minimum of 175 words.
Reflect on the multiple communication strategies covered throughout each week of this course.
Identify which strategies you would use to support a solution for the following breach of trust
scenario.
Imagine you are a supervisor or department manager who has fallen out of trust with his or
her employees after downsizing the department despite promises otherwise. There is no time
to waste in attempting to rebuild lost trust.
•
•
•
•
How do you plan to regain your employees’ respect?
What should you include in your action plan?
What style of communication will you employ to carry it out?
Who might you turn to for support?
Chapter 9: Trust—Creating an Environment Where
Communication Can Happen
9.1Trust
Trust Transcript
Download Material
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Identify the essential role of trust in organizations, appreciating that its expression
requires not only good behavior but also thoughtfully articulated skills.
2. Examine the different types of relational trust in an organization and understand why
their categorization is important.
3. Discover the most common barriers to building and maintaining trust in the workplace
and their deleterious effects.
4. Learn the fundamental behaviors necessary to build a culture of trust in an organization,
appreciating that it’s not a solo act but one that requires cooperation and accountability.
5. Identify an effective strategy to recover broken trust in the workplace, appreciating that
any efforts to mend trust within relationships will have a direct effect upon the integrity
and productivity of the organization as a whole.
Building a Foundation
Figure 9.1: Trust.
Photo by fauxels via Pexels.
Trust is the essential ingredient to securing organizational cohesion—building and
maintaining relationships that define the way organizations work. Yet, despite its
time-tested roots in empathy, integrity, and transparent communication, trust can be
elusive, sometimes taking years to earn but mere seconds to lose. Trust is written
into and between the lines of vapid mission statements everywhere—preaching
organizations’ standards of operation only to crumble under absentee leaders,
inconsistent behavior, and miscommunication. Trust defines successful leaders. It
can’t be signed off on paper but requires diligent attention within every personal,
strategic, and organizational relationship to ensure all interactions are executed
fairly, honestly, and with clarity. When trust runs the show, people tend to
be happier, more loyal, and more productive. When trust fails among individuals,
organizations fail, too.
9.2Consequential Relationships
Trust is a belief that an individual will not act opportunistically at another’s expense,
that members of an organization believe they will be treated fairly when
communicating their perspectives. It’s in this way that trust defines relationships
among colleagues and between employees and their leaders, increasing productivity
if strengthened and incurring significant costs to an organization if broken. The goal,
of course, is to secure trust, not to erode it, but it’s not easy. While the principles of
trust—integrity, competence, consistency, loyalty, and openness—remain the same
across contexts, achieving them within the varying relational dynamics of an
organization requires a uniquely adaptable set of skills, smart supporting processes,
and unwavering attention from leaders. To understand how these principles are
applied, we must first understand the types of relationships to which they are most
relevant. Only then can we appreciate why establishing trust, in all its forms, is so
important.
Process Trust
Figure 9.2: Do you think Tyra knows what she is doing?
Photo by cottonbro via Pexels.
If you’ve heard the phrase “trust the process,” you may recognize it as the idea of
placing blind faith in a known system—known to others, that is, not you. It often
requires following in the footsteps of those who’ve already completed a given
process and who, therefore, know the way forward. It always requires trusting the
leader. Process trust is trust exchanged between the person or people running the
show and those following behind them. Consider the following dialogue between two
colleagues:
“Do you think Tyra knows what she’s doing? I saw her bring Bo of all people into the
executive suite yesterday. If we’re in a financial crisis, he’s the last person I’d be
asking for advice.”
“Me, too. She’s never been too clear about management’s position on anything
around here.”
The questioning employee in this scenario has stopped trusting the process and
started doubting the executive’s decision. “Does Tyra know what she’s doing?” he
asks his colleague. Whose interests does she have in mind? Is she squandering
resources that organization members will have to pay for? The questioning
employee represents the majority of employees who, without being in a position of
authority or of comparable status to their manager, are left to trust the process and
its managers with it. It’s not a problem if trust never wavers. But it does—and for a
plethora of reasons, which we’ll detail later.
Worthy of note, process trust can run in the top-down direction, too, from manager to
employee(s). One may recognize its absence in the form of micromanaging,
avoidance tactics, or exclusive behaviors, none of which would reflect adequate
degrees of respect, cooperation, or fairness for affected individuals.
Direct Trust
With zero degrees of separation, direct trust is that which is exchanged between
employees and their supervisors, leaders and their direct reports, and staffers and
their managers. Unlike process trust, individuals within a direct trust relationship
communicate directly with each other. The extent to which this occurs and how
effective that communication is depends largely on trust. Consider the following
example:
Figure 9.3: I wonder what’s going on.
Photo by fauxels via Pexels.
“Have you noticed Louis spending a lot more time with Geoff lately? I used to be his
go-to guy, but now he doesn’t tell me anything.”
“Yeah, it’s been a couple weeks since he stopped by to talk. I wonder what’s going
on.”
The questioning employee in this scenario cites a change in his boss’s behavior as a
reason to doubt his boss’s loyalty. Is Louis treating him and his colleagues fairly? In
the absence of clear and consistent communication, can the employee be sure his
boss is making selfless decisions that put the needs of the organization and all of its
employees first? As this example demonstrates, consistent communication is as
important as what is communicated. In this particular case, because the colleague
was accustomed to hearing regular updates from his boss, unexplained silence
triggers reason to distrust his motivations or intentions.
Organizational Trust
Rather than an exchange of trust between individuals, organizational trust refers to
that between an individual and the organization for which he or she works. This
relationship comes into sharpest focus at the beginning and end of contracts and
during transitions when company rhetoric dictates job descriptions and expectations,
terms of work, employee rights, and standards of operation. Usually communicated
in fine print or as part of a cumbersome onboarding process, an organization’s
position, mission, and values often receive little attention and are trusted in blind
faith, until, that is, something erodes the well-intentioned façade and casts doubt on
an organization that isn’t walking the talk. Consider the following mission statement:
“Providing loyal and consistent service to customers everywhere since 1982.”
What’s wrong with loyal and consistent service? Nothing, of course, unless the
organization isn’t providing loyal and consistent feedback to its own. The fictional
mission statement in our example promotes a loyal company that, in practice, is
anything but loyal and consistent. Employees on the ground get daily feedback from
customers complaining that the website says one thing, while the agent said
another. Consistently receiving inconsistent feedback will erode an employee’s trust
and prompt questions: Is the company well-managed across its platforms, or does
the left hand not know what the right hand is doing? Fundamentally, does the
company do what it’s promised? Unfortunately, given the nature of organizational
relationships, second to airing objections and risking termination, employees are
usually left toeing the company line and conforming to a broken system.
Why Trusting Relationships Matter
Figure 9.4: Losing trust in a supervisor is losing trust in an organization.
Photo by Edmond Dantès via Pexels.
As distinct as these types of trust are, they are also inextricably linked. A supervisor
who has lost the trust of his or her direct report, for example, will erode the
individual’s trust in the organization. Executives who’ve broken from company script
will lose the trust of employees who’ve been hired to meet different expectations.
Research reveals 84 percent of employees connect their feelings about the
workplace to their relationship with management.1 Since employee stress is reported
to decrease by 74 percent and productivity to increase by 50 percent 2 in high-trust
companies, it’s in an organization’s best interest to secure and maintain trust. As
we’ve already discussed, when employees trust their colleagues and their leaders,
they’re better able to cooperate, make good decisions, and solve problems more
effectively. Employees who’ve been entrusted to complete a task and who’ve been
given adequate resources will be more willing to expose their vulnerability in the form
of smarter, calculated risks that benefit the organization. And those who trust their
leaders will support them in their failure, work harder, and stay with the company
longer, committing to an organization’s goals even when work is at its most
challenging. If employees don’t trust the organization and its leaders, expect the
opposite results, with symptoms including employee disengagement, perpetuated
distrust, decreased productivity, toxic rumors, and low morale.
9.3Trustbusters
Trustbusters Transcript
Download Material
Despite our best efforts, hard-earned trust, as we’ve noted and have no doubt
experienced, can be lost in an instant. As a potential barrier to effective interpersonal
communication, trust itself falls victim to workplace barriers. We’ll identify these
barriers as a means to better recognize some of the most common causes of distrust
in the workplace. It’s only if we’re aware of a problem, after all, that we can work to
fix it.
Inconsistency
Whether it’s managers breaking promises or supervisors expecting something
different from employees than what was initially directed, workplace messages get
crossed, flipped, and falsified all the time. It happens across departments of any
organization, both internally and externally, from executives down to interns.
Consider the following dialogue:
Figure 9.5: Why does it feel like Deidre is avoiding us?
Photo by August de Richelieu via Pexels.
“Why does it feel like Deidre is avoiding us? I’ve never been anything but respectful
to everyone in finance.”
“I don’t know. I’d say she might be annoyed by our project budget, but we just got
Sanjay’s approval to hire two more analysts.”
In this scenario, the boss, Sanjay, has given Deidre and the finance department
different information than he gave the questioning employees. If the two employees
have done exactly as they’ve been instructed, then we can safely surmise that the
instructions they’ve been given weren’t the same as those given to the finance
department. There was an inconsistency somewhere along the organization pipeline.
Why didn’t Sanjay, or any boss in his position, communicate consistent messages?
It’s often the case that a leader simply wants to tell each individual what he or she
wants to hear in order to maintain favor in the face of bad news. But this “saving
face” routine backfires. As soon as the inconsistency is revealed, so will be a
leader’s disrespectful and untrustworthy behavior.
Inconsistencies are also apt to appear in an organization’s standards of operation.
Playing favorites is, unfortunately, a common example. While each employee may
articulate his or her unique needs and have legitimate reasons for doing so, it’s
critical for department leaders to treat employees equally, not to choose favorites.
Consider the following:
“It rubs me the wrong way that Neil gets to wear a Cubs jersey to work just because
he and Celia went to a game together. I hate wearing a shirt and tie.”
A seemingly innocuous gesture can rupture perfectly respectable relationships. In
our example, while Celia said nothing at all to the begrudging employee, Celia has
upset him by treating his colleague differently. This behavior upsets the trust an
employee has for his boss in a way that may affect his expectation for fair treatment
in the future. Double standards are untrustworthy standards.
Concealment
Some issues are just easier to avoid talking about—an abrupt change in
management, a firing, a toxic rumor—but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be
mentioned. Ignoring the news everyone is whispering about only adds fuel to the fire.
It can grow suspicion that those “in the know” are trying to hide something. Consider
the following example:
Figure 9.6: If they fired her, they might fire anyone.
Photo by Edmond Dantès via Pexels.
“Chloe is the third person from sales to clear her desk this week. I never saw the
other two do much work, but Chloe’s been here for years! If they fired her, they might
fire anyone!”
While the speaker in this example may have a legitimate reason for her concern, she
may well be jumping to unfair conclusions. It could be that Chloe and her colleagues
were the victims of a company downsizing or that they were skimming funds from
company profits. But it could also be the case that the sales department was simply
being moved to a different location. Not knowing the reason isn’t so much the
problem as not having been told anything about a significant change one way or
another. As our example indicates, without information, employees tend to think the
worst has happened—and the worst of those behind the curtain. It is better for
decision makers to say something—even that they can’t explain a move to respect
personnel confidentiality—than say nothing at all.
Ambiguity
Figure 9.7: Isaac didn’t say whether that deadline was for the whole project or
part one.
Photo by August de Richelieu via Pexels.
Clarity, or a lack of clarity, has appeared repeatedly in our discussion of
interpersonal communication. Now, we meet ambiguity as a barrier to trust. Partially
withholding or poorly communicating information to the extent that it becomes
difficult for the receiver to understand is inconvenient at best. More often than not,
ambiguity creates inefficiency and frustration and lowers performance. Not only does
the message source lose his or her credibility but also the given task can’t be
effectively completed without adequate information or insight. Without clarity, no one
wins. Consider the following example:
“We were told Thursday was the deadline, but Isaac didn’t say whether that deadline
was for the whole project or part one. It figures he’s not here to ask. I’ll have to rush
to finish it just in case the client expects the whole thing.”
This example demonstrates an employee’s frustration with her manager’s unclear
instructions. In this case, the consequences of the manager’s ambiguity could be
significant. A rush job on the client project could force errors that compromise the
client’s relationship with the company. Adding to the trouble, negative client
feedback would reflect poorly on the employee rather than the manager who forced
the error. Resulting resentment and distrust between the employee and her manager
would take considerable effort to undo.
On the topic of feedback, supervisors who are uncomfortable giving negative
feedback may be vague with employees or lie and mislead them into thinking their
underwhelming performance is, in fact, acceptable. Unfortunately, when this
behavior eventually causes a punishable offense, the employee will be blindsided by
overdue criticism. Ripe with confusion and distrust, this scenario can often end in a
wrongful termination lawsuit.
Distrust
Leaders inclined to perfectionism may exhibit an unhelpful tendency to
micromanage. By seeking to control their employees’ processes and deliverables
rather than responsibly delegate tasks, leaders inhibit their employees’ professional
development. In other words, leaders’ distrust erodes employees’ trust and weakens
their potential. Consider the following example:
Figure 9.8: Never mind, I’ll write it.
Photo by Andrea Piacquadio via Pexels.
“Jillian, how did you start that email to Mr. Wu? You know what, never mind, I’ll write
it myself. And did you draft the press release yet?”
“I’d started it when you . . .”
“Good, I want to see it before you get any further.”
The supervisor in our example has overstepped the boundaries of helpful guidance,
distrusting his employee to do her work herself. While leaders do indeed have a
responsibility to equip their employees with the resources necessary to succeed and
to provide guidance or support as needed, they also must trust those they’ve hired to
do the jobs they’ve been hired to do. Managers who fail to recognize this discourage
employees by planting seeds of insecurity, baseless ineptitude, and frustration.
Those employees who manage not to take micromanagement personally and
recognize their skills will be valued elsewhere tend to leave and seek employment in
other places.
This list is by no means comprehensive—trustbusters manifest in any number of
ways, and even if every precaution is taken or protocol followed, distrust in the wake
of big egos and extreme stress can still erode an organization’s foundation. But
perhaps by gaining familiarity with the triggers for untrustworthy behavior, conditions
can be nurtured to prevent words from getting twisted, buried, and manipulated so
distrust can’t take root.
9.4Our Best Defenses
Our best defenses against untrustworthy behavior are the very same strategies
critical for effective interpersonal communication: listening, respect, openness,
clarity, feedback, empathy, and attention. None of these qualities is any single
person’s responsibility; it’s a two-way street with both sender and receiver
responsible for doing his and her part. Indeed, if we value trust as the ingredient
essential to forming robust and respectful workplace relationships, then we must be
willing to accept the following related strategies as essential to ensuring trust
succeeds in the organizations where we work.
Figure 9.9: Effective interpersonal communication.
Photo by Gustavo Fring via Pexels.
Put another way, trust is best accomplished by communicating in ways opposite to
the trustbusting behaviors we’ve just described. Let’s examine a few specific
examples of trustworthy strategies here:
Err on the side of clear and consistent information. Share the information you have. As
a member of upper-level management, this could mean keeping employees informed about
company decisions or changes coming to an organization that would affect daily routines.
As a supervisor or department head, it could mean initiating conversations with direct
reports to give and receive feedback on projects and personal performance. Employees
kept abreast of changes will have less reason to doubt leaders’ motivations and intentions
when changes do happen, and if they do have questions, will be more likely to approach
leadership to ask them. As the eeks pass, provide updates and possible ways employees
can help facilitate the transition. Knowledge is empowering.
Listen more. The value of listening can never be overstated. In the instance of distrust that
we detailed above, supervisors who listen to their direct reports instead of assuming
disability or dysfunction may discover their doubts are unfounded. The sooner leaders can
admit they don’t have all the answers, the sooner they can seek answers from others. This
vulnerability is one of the clearest displays of trust: I trust you not to judge me for my lack of
knowledge, and I trust your ability to provide the information I need. Employees will respect
their leader for this behavior and will feel empowered by the trust placed in their ability to
help. Listening also means asking employees how they’re feeling, listening to their answers,
and following through. By creating a safe space to share uncomfortable truths, employees
will feel more secure asking for the resources and care they need to ensure their mental
and physical health.
Macromanage. Check in without being so hands-on. No doubt about it, even the most
experienced employees will require guidance, assistance, support, and feedback. But that
doesn’t have to mean drumming it out of them through hyper-surveillance exercises. It’s
possible and even advisable to show interest and inquire about progress without implying to
an employee that he or she is unable to manage the task without help. Let the employee
come to you by inviting his or her feedback. When employees can trust they won’t be
judged for their honesty but listened to and supported instead, they won’t hesitate to seek
leaders’ support when they need it. By making themselves available to listen and providing
ample resources and support upon request, macromanagers will give employees space to
innovate, collaborate, and make mistakes that spur intelligent growth.
Play equals, not favorites. Be respectful of everyone’s time, talents, and opinions. It’s
okay to disagree or to lack patience and criticize in a lapse of judgment as long as you’re
treating people fairly, accepting responsibility for your actions, and apologizing where
acknowledgment for one’s mistakes are due. No one is perfect—building and maintaining
trust is an imperfect process—but one must be empathetic to others’ needs when asserting
one’s own. And while it may be easier to relate to some needs more than others, it’s
important to serve all needs equally. Leaders who permit their most talented employee to
break house rules will lose the respect and trust of the team who feel slighted to the double
standard. One for all and all for one.
Give feedback fairly and vulnerably. In terms of building and maintaining trust, a
willingness to accept feedback can be just as important as giving it. Listening to feedback
and owning our mistakes or shortcomings serve to highlight places where we can learn and
develop our skills. Accepting the challenge of self-improvement in the company of someone
whom we trust—be it a supervisor, colleague, or manager—guarantees their support for the
journey. Much like we described in listening: I trust your feedback is given not as judgment
but in the interest of helping me improve, and now, I trust your guidance to help me grow.
Accepting things about us that are less than complimentary can be an act of courage. Truth
can sting, but it’s only through awareness that we can change. Leaders can help foster a
constructive feedback culture by openly accepting their own mistakes and providing support
to those who determine to improve for the sake of the organization.
Walk the talk. Even if leaders and employees are doing everything right—communicating
clearly and consistently, listening, treating each other fairly, macromanaging, and accepting
honest feedback—the bottom will still fall out if the organization’s values are not supporting
the behaviors. An organization’s values—those often established in trite, politically correct
values statements—must be more than a smokescreen. They have to withstand the
pressure of blowback from critical clients, suing customers, unhappy employees, and
executive backstabbing. If integrity is a core value, the company has to prove it through its
actions. If teamwork is a core value, an organization better have the numbers to justify it.
Authenticity at the top, the very top of an organization, counts, too. Otherwise, when push
comes to shove, employees who assumed they’d have the organization’s values-driven
support and don’t get it will have no reason to trust their leaders’ communication and will
every reason to leave the company. Choose strong values wisely and stick to them.
9.5Reclaiming Lost Trust
“One minute I’m counting the minutes to launch, and the next minute, I’m scrambling
to stop the presses. Everything was going so well! What could possibly have turned
the client against us?”
Figure 9.10: What turned the client against us?
Photo by Andrea Piacquadio via Pexels.
It happens. The most innocuous statement gets twisted in a way you never could
have imagined, and as it spirals through the rumor mill, your reputation gets dragged
down with it. Trust, once lost, is hard to regain. Someone with a bruised ego may
seek displaced revenge. Someone who feels excluded and underappreciated may
betray their colleague’s trust. If forgiveness, leaving, or hiding under a rock aren’t
options, what can be done about it? Rebuilding trust takes considerable time and
effort, but it’s not impossible. The following adaptation of our problem-solving
strategy offers an effective way forward.
Learn the truth. Asking a series of questions can help uncover the story of the breakdown:
Was there a particular incident that broke trust, or did trust erode gradually?
If it happened over a period of time, it may be helpful to understand what exactly
deteriorated and why it did in order to prevent such breakdowns from happening again.
Don’t stop at the first layer; peeling away the truth can reveal multiple players and
complicated motivations. If trust was betrayed in an instant, it may be easier to identify the
exact source of the problem and address the person or issue directly.
When did you learn about the breach of trust? When did the organization find out?
The longer the truth has been buried, the deeper the hole from which to dig it out. If you’ve
known something was wrong but didn’t address it or failed to accept responsibility for your
part in the breach of confidence, employees’ ability to forgive and move on will be
compromised.
Did the breach of trust trigger retaliation? Have others inflicted more pain?
Discovering whether the hurt ends with you or if others’ trust has also been affected—a
result of retaliation or vindication—is helpful to be able to understand who may be an ally on
your road to rebuilding trust and who may make the effort more difficult.
Assess the damage. Once you’ve learned as much as you can about the truth, you must
learn the extent of the damage, how much the organization and its members have been
affected by the breach of trust. By understanding the depth of the fissure, it’s more possible
to rebuild trust with the right tools. Bringing in the fire brigade to extinguish a petty “he said,
she said,” issue might exacerbate the problem. Trying to debunk an upper-management
coup with a polite knock on the executive suite door might trivialize your plight and make it
even harder to recover even a scrap of dignity. Different levels of response are appropriate
for different circumstances.
Broach the breach. The faster and more efficient your reconnaissance mission, the sooner
you can let the organization know you know. It’s only by being armed with the truth that it
becomes possible to responsibly articulate your connection to the breach and attempt
recovery. Much like the trust gained from accepting one’s mistakes, to take ownership of a
loss of trust and its consequences is an act of vulnerability that invites invested parties to
respond with empathy. But there’s no guarantee they will—the announcement rides on the
heels of deep-seated doubt and suspicion. So, choosing the right words is critical: let people
know you’re aware of the problem and the extent of its damage and that you’re committed
to mending ways. Any underhanded inclinations to aggravate the problem or see the breach
punished further will likely be halted.
Detail your plan. If you haven’t made it clear when those affected can expect to hear your
recovery plan, publicize a date and stick to it. Any inconsistency or ambiguity at this stage
won’t be easily forgiven. Your plan to rebuild trust should be as detailed as possible,
identifying where exactly changes will be implemented or individuals reassigned—whatever
is deemed necessary in order to avoid a similar problem and degradation of trust from
happening again. This may also require availing upper management of any forthcoming
plans for reorganization, firings, or operational adjustments. When you err on the side of
information, no one will be left with new reasons to view motivations with leftover suspicion.
Commit to Patience. Setting a plan in motion isn’t the end of the line. Rebuilding trust
requires doing what you’ve promised, ensuring planned adjustments are making the
necessary difference, and adapting to honest feedback from those who can view the
process objectively. People need to see you’re making an honest effort. A balanced plan
must do more than appease those most affected. It will equip everyone with the resources
and support they need to succeed. If any imbalance does exist, an unrelenting amount of
attention must be devoted to clear and consistent communication aimed at getting
employees back on the same page. Trying to force forgiveness doesn’t work. Patience
does.
9.6Summary
Figure 9.11: Live by trustworthy standards.
Photo by Sora Shimazaki via Pexels.
Some sources say, “It will take a year’s worth of consistent, observable efforts to
prove the change is real for a large breach of trust to be healed.”1 All the more
reason to move swiftly to take the aforementioned actions. The sooner one can act,
the easier it will be to contain the damage. Better than recovery, of course, is to be
proactive and live by trustworthy standards every day—treating others with respect,
listening well, exercising fairness in action, articulating clear and consistent
information, and holding yourself and others accountable for their behaviors. There
is no substitute for trust; there is no top executive who’s been in the business long
enough to earn an exemption. Everyone must uphold the trustworthiness of the
organization by being trustworthy themselves. As we’ve already asserted, an
organization fails without cooperation, and cooperation is impossible without trust.