Match communication styles when delivering messages to clients, coworkers
Q: I am inundated by emails at work, and it can take me up to two to three hours some days to get through them. Some need immediate responses and some can wait. Sometimes a person thinks it’s urgent when it really isn’t, but it’s then up to me to explain why, which is time-consuming.
Sometimes I don’t have the time to explain why their problem isn’t urgent and I think the situation should be obvious to that person, so I don’t respond. This is where I can get into trouble. I also get right to the point, which often offends them. I have to figure out a way to tell people so they understand. When they hear it’s not a critical situation, they turn off and get angry, as if I’m saying their problem doesn’t matter. That is not what I’m saying, but I’m not sure how to tell them something they don’t want to hear.
A: Ever notice how some people are easy to talk to and conversations with them seem to flow smoothly? Then there are those whom you’d like to tell to hurry up and get to the point, but they simply cannot. You hear them drone on with situation after situation, detail upon detail, explaining the information you don’t want to hear or need to know before they arrive at the point. You become annoyed, bored and impatient with them, but neither of you is to blame.
According to Dr. Ethan F. Becker and Jon Wortmann, authors of Mastering
Communication At Work, communication problems can be solved with an awareness of your communication style compared to others.’ Though a person may predominantly be a certain type of thinker, “master communicators are able to change the way they communicate so that they meet the needs of the listener.”
People are either inductive or deductive thinkers, and the way a person thinks determines how that person naturally communicates. It may seem like it requires extensive analysis to be able to communicate with opposite types of thinkers, but there is a quick and easy way to learn what kind of communicator you are dealing with.
A deductive thinker gets right to the point, which sounds like it may be your communication style. Inductive thinkers, on the other hand, want to include every interruption, every excuse, every story that occurred along the way before they can get to the point.
As a deductive thinker, you want to deliver the main message first, and you want others to communicate with you in the same manner.
Because the point is what matters to you, you have cut out the storytelling, the experiential tidbits you realized along the way to making your decision, so the receiver can immediately understand the point you want to make.
But imagine that the person you need to communicate with is an inductive thinker. He wants the details of how you arrived at that decision before you get to the point. You’ve cut out the explanations, the excuses, the niceties and the juicy parts, so he responds with anger, thinking you are perhaps harsh, cold and pragmatic when all you are is practical.
A person’s listening ability matches their thinking style, so a conversation with a deductive thinker does not match well naturally with an inductive thinker.
Since it’s easy to identify a person’s thinking and communication style once you’ve had conversations with them, Becker and Wortmann suggest matching that person’s style. You are not changing your style but rather matching the other person’s style so they will feel acknowledged.
Rather than shutting them down with the fact that you do not consider their problem urgent, they say giving a person five minutes of your time can save time from frustration and anger in the future. Listen to some of their reasoning, then explain you have work you must finish but can talk later.
People trust people who respect them. No one communication style is the right way; adjusting to the style of the person who typically gets upset will win you points and appease others without them knowing your plan.
A person’s listening ability matches their thinking style, so a conversation with a deductive thinker does not match well naturally with an inductive thinker.