The hidden power of language in critical situations.
“One can not not communicate.” as a phrase by Paul Watzlawick, a famous communication psychologist, goes, or, in other words, we communicate all the time. In fact, we communicate so much that we in relation to that amount, think far too little about it, even though there is an enormous field of science, services, and books dedicated to it. Sometimes, as with many other things, some secrets lie directly in front of us, yet we do not see them.
Did you for example, ever wonder, what would happen if we stopped talking about critical situations as crises? How would it impact our performance and ability to work through such situations if we communicated about the situation from a completely different angle? Let’s take a closer look.
Within the field of crisis management, there is a large field that works on crisis communication. More specifically, how to best communicate in a crisis situation. The interesting thing is that this communication focuses a disproportionate amount on external communication, and some even say it merely focuses on the reputation management of whoever faces the crisis. This might to some extent be true although, there is a lot of literature and research about general crisis communication with less focus on the protection of reputation. What is, however, neglected is internal communication and the importance of not only having a clear idea for how to communicate to the outside but also have an arguably even clearer idea for how and more importantly, what to communicate to the inside.
With “The Crisis Compass” we try to approach dealing with crises from a different angle and work with alternative ways to handle the situations. In our latest workshop, we wanted to test out to what extent the statement “how we say something shapes how we think and act” can be applied for crisis situations. We simulated a situation where two groups were given a simple task they had to complete under time pressure. The task, the drafting of a statement in response to a challenge, was communicated in writing and was the same for both groups; only the formulation and language it was drafted in differed. One (group A) received a strong crisis-focused memo, while the other one (group B) was given a memo, which did not mention the word ‘crisis’ and used few references to the situation beyond its key facts. Rather, it encouraged to think differently and use this opportunity. Our very simple hypothesis was that language influenced how the teams would formulate their statements and the results were beyond anything we had anticipated.
The two groups solved the task successfully, yet made fundamentally different statements. Here are the key differences:
Group A’s statement had a clear intent, to build trust and confidence. It focused in its language on assurances, empathy in seeing the audiences in their different needs and situations and creating an inclusive tone, despite being clear that at this stage it is too early to do something. Group B’s intent meanwhile was to show readiness to actually turn the tables and make the best out of this situation. The group used a lot of clear statements that were very action-focused and the aim was to confirm the trust that they felt was given to them through the original memo.
Content & Structure. Group B stated a number of actions and measures that they were planning to implement and used clear and factual descriptions of these, while in group A the sub-tone was that the aim is to get more information before a clear strategy could be laid out, feeding into the creation of trust.
Need for information. When reading the two statements’s it becomes clear that the groups had a very different perspective on the information they had available. Group A’s clearly acknowledges the need for more information before being able to determine the correct steps to take, while group B, in the same position, yet boosted with confidence and reassurance from the memo they had received, sends out the clear message that there must not be worry, they were ready to turn the tables and come out of this situation stronger and better positioned. They had taken the proactive role in facing the situation, while group A, seemingly tamed by a more cautious and not so strongly encouraging initial memo did not feel to be in the right place to make those statements yet, not knowing enough details at this stage. Maybe the key difference between the statements was on what each group focused with their messages. Group A’s memo emphasises the bigger picture, the complexity of the situation and implies that there are many factors in play. The focus is here clearly on the overall system and reads explanatory and descriptive. Group B on the other hand focuses on their almost exclusively on their own position. Beyond the first sentence, there is not mentioning of the wider context of this challenging situation. The main focus of each message is their own position and measures, this reads dynamic and active.
Emotions/Tone. Reading both statements triggers very different emotional responses. In one of them the tone is calming and inclusive, leading to almost a soothing effect (group A), trying to counterbalance the emotions and tone for their initial memo, while the other one is energetic and promotes activity, through its factual tone. You have the feeling, things have already started and it is time to jump on the train.
This short comparison of the experiment does not conclude a qualification which of the responses is better than the other, it merely heads out to show how strongly language actually influences our perspectives and actions. The two initial memos were intended to portray the same reality using (though not fundamentally) different language. The impact, however, was significant on the response. Both groups used the emotions that were triggered within them through the original email, though in different forms. While the rather negative uncertain memo was counterbalance with the aim to reassure trust and build confidence and meet the shareholders in their insecurity, the more encouraging memo triggered a concrete and confidence-boosted response including clear actions and with a focus on your own position, scope of influence and solutions.
5 key take aways for the practical use of this:
Avoid messaging about the context and focus on the scope of influence. A strong focus on the context leads to insecurity and uncertainty over responsibility because the team or individuals cannot grasp their tasks as they lie outside their scope of influence. A focus on the latter leads to empowerment and a feeling of control, which triggers a confidence boost in thinking differently when responding to a crisis.
Beware of how messages are phrased, both the ones you receive and the ones you send. Get different perspectives on how the message is read and perceived. Making it explicit helps to identify the sub-tone, which is the first enabler to changing it.
Be honest, yet give your messages positive twists. Communicating confidence and trust to your team and organisation encourages a more open mindset; however, a key point for every crisis is to be honest about the situation.
Positive language helps you own the critical situation and save time and resources. The two groups seemingly started on different levels in their crisis response, while actually being in the exact same situation. A negative narrative forces you to first overcome that in order to think solution-focused- and opportunity-focused.
Avoid expectations by taking yourself into the equation. There might seemingly not be a difference, however, expectations can be toxic and limiting by putting pressure on the team. Also, trust does not have to be communicated as in “I trust you.”, which is not necessarily an encouraging statement always but can be perceived as putting pressure on the other person/group depending on their interpretation. It can be more subtle to take yourself into the statement “We are in the perfect position to seize this opportunity.”
Language turns out to be a key factor in dealing with critical situations, difficult decisions and find creative solutions in challenging moments. It can be a super power that lies between reacting to and controlling a crisis.
+++
Thomas Lahnthaler is an experienced leadership consultant, facilitator, disruption expert, and author of “Navigating Beyond Crisis. He is a #WeLeadComms honoree and a Strategic Columnist.
