Avoiding Eggshells and Overreactions
How we can help improve a workplace full of text-based communication
We’ve all done it. We read what someone has written online and instantly we get upset. Sometimes because of what they’ve written, but often it’s because of how they wrote it. It’s the tone of voice that we hear as we read it. We don’t have any of the context that verbal communication carries — body language, sound, the simple cadence of the words.
Unless they’ve specifically expressed an emotion in text, what do we use to create their tone of voice in our own heads? I believe we all install a default tone of voice for every bit of text we read.
If we know the writer well, we have a default tone of voice for that person based on previous interactions. If we feel they are directive most often, we’ll read their texts as directive. If they tend to engage with curiosity, perhaps we install an inquisitive tone of voice in their texts. If we don’t know the writer well, we use context clues — likely based on stereotypes — to form their default tone of voice. If someone is a leader of an organization, we might install a more authoritative tone of voice. If someone is a comedian, our brains add a little sarcasm. If someone comes from a specific group that we disagree with, we can install a default argumentative tone.
This happens subconsciously, so we don’t even realize we’re doing it. We read and react. We do more than react. We tend to overreact. If the default tone we install is negative, our defenses rise. If the default tone we install is positive, we may get overly effusive about the post. These emotions that rise in us prevent us from objectively assessing what they’ve written.
Our response — most often in the form of a text reply — can carry the emotions evoked by the default tone of voice we’ve installed on the original text. The original writer then installs their default tone of voice for us on our reply and provokes their own corresponding emotions. As you might imagine and we witness often, the whiplash of back and forth emotions escalates quickly. These interactions often leave us frustrated, hurt, and walking on eggshells. We can have the most honorable intentions with our post, but worry how it will land.
We see this everywhere on social media, particularly with hot button political or cultural topics. Several years ago, I stopped discussing politics or other sensitive issues online because I realized how futile (and bad for my mental health) it was to discuss serious topics via text. It almost always resulted in either emotionally disrespectful arguments or echo chambers of agreement. Neither of these end results serves much purpose.
These patterns aren’t exclusive to social media. Since the pandemic disrupted our in-person workplaces, our communication at work has become increasingly dominated by text. While email has been around forever, remote work led to the ubiquity of platforms like Slack or Microsoft Teams. There’s not a day that goes by where I don’t see hundreds of text-based conversations fly across my Teams feed. I think most of us in knowledge economy jobs can relate.
While we may not be discussing the hot-button topics seen on social media, our work conversations can suffer from the same effects of default tone of voice. I often see quick escalation of emotions among my colleagues and the frustration that results. It’s a result that very rarely occurs if we hop on a video call or get together in person to discuss the same topic. Adding in the advantage of actual tone of voice and non-verbal cues, we rarely get into it the way we can in text conversations. I’d estimate that more than three quarters of the interpersonal conflict that occurs on our team is a direct symptom of falling into the default tone of voice trap. It creates a nasty cycle of overreaction and eggshells.
So how do we fix this?
Get to know each other better. My team has had incredible growth since 2020, which means that more than half of the team has never worked in person with their colleagues. Simply working alongside someone allows you to learn who they are and develop trust. Trust breeds the benefit of the doubt. Since remote work has so many more benefits that we don’t want to lose, we must find ways to build this knowledge and trust of each other without being in the same space. This can take the form of in-person social events, retreats, and virtual teambuilding exercises.
Build a culture of clarity and feedback. On healthy teams, coworkers feel comfortable asking questions of clarification and giving their peers specific, constructive feedback. If someone reads a text post that creates a negative emotional response, we should encourage asking for clarity. Can you help me understand why you’re asking us to do this? Your post makes it sound like this is the only alternative; is there room for other opinions here? If the post feels aggressive, team members should be encouraged to provide that feedback. I read your post and it felt critical of my work. I would appreciate if you could use a different approach in the future. If you’re authoring the initial post, you can be proactive in soliciting feedback. Is there anything here you need more detail on? Is there anything I’m missing as we consider this?
Jump on a video call. One of the most surefire ways of breaking the spiral of a misunderstood text conversation is to press pause and transfer the discussion to a video call (or in person) so you can add tone and body language. Hey, I think I’ll have a better chance of understanding what you’re asking if we jump on a call. So let’s press pause here and reboot at 3?
Assume good intentions. This one goes such a long way to nipping the negative cycle in the bud. If we assume that our colleagues are communicating in good faith and for the betterment of the team, that can help us modify the default tone of voice our brains hear. How would I read this differently if I was convinced it was written with my and our team’s best interests at heart?
Be explicit and open with tone. If you need to make a post that you feel could be sensitive to others on the team, make sure you use words that indicate your tone. Instead of stating something directly, you could indicate curiosity. I’ve noted that we are currently using this process. Could someone help me understand how this is the most efficient way of accomplishing our goal? I have some ideas on how we might improve it. They are … Some might suggest the use of emoji can offer a more palatable approach, but I’ve found that no emoji can take the place of words to explicitly communicate tone. Don’t let emoji stand in for emotion.
Provide context. Always lead with the why. If you’re going to ask others to change the way they currently do something, they need to understand the reason. This can be presented in a way that honors the current process while explaining why a change is justified. I understand that we’re currently doing X because of Y. However, there’s additional context that’s now true and I’d like to suggest we take a new approach.
The remote nature of our workplaces and the technology-connected nature of our world means that the dominance of text communication is here to stay — warts and all. It’s up to each of us to intentionally break the boil of those conversations that end up in overreactions and eggshells. We must bring more context and grace into our text conversations and know when a conversation needs the experience of fuller human connection.