The Trouble with Email
“I send out this simple, straight-forward email, then I get all this negative reaction. I don’t get it.”
Misconstrued Emails
Lawyers and law firm administrators that I coach report this to me a lot. Emails are informal and easy to send quickly, so we often zip them off without rereading them to see how they might sound to the reader. The recipients of the email then supply the tone of voice, cadence and volume to it, which can dramatically affect the tenor of the message.
We send out something like “Don’t forget to sign up by Tuesday!” In our minds we hear the polite, encouraging voice of a flight attendant on the intercom reminding us to keep our seatbelts fastened during the flight. Our reader, however, hears the edgy voice of an eighth grade math teacher admonishing an unruly class. If there is any history of friction or conflict between sender and reader (as frequently happens with opposing counsel, subordinates who have been “counseled” or partners in competition for firm resources), the reader may hear the threatening bark of a drill sergeant.
Why is that? Most of us can’t type as fast as we can speak, so we tend toward brevity and directness in our emails. Brevity in conversation often comes across as curt, disinterested, rude or commanding, unless we soften it with a cheery or concerned tone. In email, the reader inserts the tone themselves, and they often don’t supply the most cordial tone.
Tips for Avoiding Misunderstandings
To establish the intended tone in an email, we can either sacrifice brevity and become more formal, or adopt the extreme brevity and informality that teenagers use in text messaging. “When are you going to send the documents?” might sound abrasive and nagging in some circumstances. You can soften that by substituting “It would be helpful to know when we might expect to receive the documents.” Alternatively, a message that says “When r u sending docs?” is so abbreviated that the reader is now more likely to understand that the sender is just saving time, and not being curt. Readers are particularly likely to grant that extra bit of grace when the email obviously comes from a Blackberry or other PDA.
By the way, just in case you are not already aware of the little rules of email etiquette, upper case typing in email is the equivalent of raising the voice in person. In some circumstances colored fonts or bold face can also be interpreted that way. If you are a poor typist, it is better to type in all lower case than all upper case. That’s an accepted way to manage the challenge of sending messages using the little buttons on a PDA or when typing rapid fire to keep the conversation flowing in an online chat.
Please Don’t Make This Mistake
Some writers think their readers are unreasonably sensitive and just looking for something to complain about. “I said ‘Please’ for Pete’s sake!” they grumble. Unfortunately, however, in many circumstances the word “please” has become the signal that a command will follow, such as “Please keep off the grass” or “Please don’t touch.”
To avoid that implication, instead of “Please respond by Friday,” try going a little more formal as in one of the following:
“Kindly respond by Friday.”
“We would greatly appreciate a response by Friday.”
“Would you be so kind as to let us know your intentions by Friday?”
Email is No Substitute
I can’t talk about avoiding misunderstandings in emails without addressing one other issue. Today co-workers officing next door to each other often communicate by email. With email we can talk without having to make a real-time connection between two busy people. Such written correspondence also serves the valuable purpose of making it easy to track the communication and document agreements and instructions for future reference.
Unfortunately, however, people also use email to avoid direct confrontation in sticky situations. I coached a lawyer who was having difficulties with a co-worker in another department. My client was a likeable guy and his requests seemed reasonable in the situation, yet he experienced friction and resistance for weeks. I asked whether he had tried having a conversation with his co-worker to figure out the problem.
“I sent him an email,” he said.
“Is he in your building?” I asked, incredulous.
“Yes, he’s down one floor.”
“Are your legs broken?” I chided.
He held a face to face conversation that day and got the issue resolved.
When things are already testy, email communication has a high risk of exacerbating the situation. Save time and conflict by picking up the phone or meeting in person. If you need documentation of the understanding reached or the information communicated, you can send a confirming email afterwards.
Use More Personal Touch in Touchy Situations
In summary, email is a great time-saver in day-to-day situations. When communication has the potential to get touchy, however, we need to slow down and pay attention to the possible ways that our language might be misconstrued. We can save ourselves a lot of time in the long run by taking the extra steps necessary to make sure that the positive intent of our message comes through, whether by adjusting our language or picking up the phone.
Post Date: June 10, 2008
Clues You Can Use to Soothe Clashes
We all have someone we have to deal with who is somehow blocking us from getting what we want. It may be opposing counsel, but it may just as likely be our own partner or a staff member who isn’t performing to our expectations. In those situations our frustration levels mount, and some of us sneer or explode. We go from dealing with a difficult person to being a difficult person.
Many such problems can be solved or prevented if we can improve our communication skills. Here are some “clues you can use” to improve your communication and reduce the conflict in your office.
1. Deal with annoyances while they are small.
This concept particularly applies to people we interact with frequently. Sometimes someone does something that annoys us, inconveniences us or hurts us, but because it is a small matter, we think it would be too petty to bring up. By the time it (or something like it) happens the tenth time, we have a big stack of grievances to address, and our emotions run high. We appear to react out of proportion to the incident, but actually we are reacting to ten incidents. Ambrose Bierce, an American author and newspaper columnist, said, “Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you will ever regret.” If we simply address the issue the first or second time it occurs, we usually can discuss it calmly, casually and without a lot of emotional investment.
2. Find some common ground or mutual goal to set as the framework for your discussion.
Your listener will be more willing to listen when he knows you care about his goals and interests. For example, if a lawyer in the office talks too loudly, affecting your concentration, you might start with, “This is a small, but busy office. I know you want everyone to be productive, with a minimum of distractions and interruptions, right? And I assume you want to safeguard client confidences, too.”
Be sure you find some truly mutual goals so he knows the WIIFM (what’s in it for me). It must be motivating for him. Once you identify a goal that you both share, then address the behavior that interferes with the goal and that you would like to see changed.
3. Describe his behavior and its impact, not him.
Be specific and let him know how his behavior impacts you or others, without inserting barbs or judgments or characterizing him negatively. Instead of “You’re too loud and inconsiderate,” try “Voices carry pretty far in here. I can hear your conversations on the phone, especially when you use the conference feature. I find it difficult to concentrate on my work, and I worry that client confidences may be revealed to anyone who happens to be in our offices.” This would also be a good time to check to find out what impact you are having on him. It shows your concern and respect for his needs. “Do you have a similar problem with my voice?”
4. Be open to solutions you hadn’t considered.
“Could we brainstorm some solutions?” That shows respect and caring for his interests by inviting him to suggest solutions, instead of trying to impose yours. People are much more willing to comply with a plan that they helped create. They may even volunteer something that you would have been afraid to suggest, like “Gee, I didn’t realize I was so loud that others could hear me. Maybe I should get my hearing checked.”
5. Clarify your intention by expressly stating that you don’t intend something negative, and state your positive intention.
Sometimes the discussion will create defensiveness or avoidance in others. We can help prevent that, or successfully deal with it when it occurs by creating safety for them. Two tools for creating safety are treating them with respect and clarifying our intention. Think about what they might be afraid of, or what negative intention they might assume. You might say, “I’m not trying to suggest that my work is more important than yours, or that you have to tip-toe around me. I just want to maintain client confidences and keep productivity levels up in the office.”
6. Maintain respect for others by (a) noticing the story you are making up about them, and (b) checking your assumptions.
When we tell ourselves he is a loudmouth boor with no consideration for others, it doesn’t help us maintain a respectful attitude and tone in our conversation with him. Try to imagine some reasonable motivation for his behavior before starting the conversation, to calm your emotions. Perhaps he is not aware that you can hear him. Or maybe he has a sinus condition that plugs his ears sometimes. Then ask questions to check out your assumptions, or even state them and ask if you are on target. You could say, “We could hear the weaknesses of Mr. Coleman’s case as you described them on the phone today. I’m wondering if you knew how far your voice carries.”
7. Rinse and repeat if necessary.
If during the conversation the other person starts getting defensive, becomes angry or clams up, he is feeling unsafe. He doesn’t believe that you care about or have respect for him or his interests. Acknowledge his interests, go back to finding a common goal, clarify your intention or check your assumptions until you have reestablished safety. Then proceed with the meat of the discussion. You might say, “I notice that you are not saying much about this. I hope you are not getting the impression that I am judging you negatively for something you aren’t sure how to control. I value you, and believe there must be a solution that works for all of us. Can we keep talking until we find it?”
You may notice that these recommendations can be time consuming to implement. They involve a lot more words than, “Pipe down in there!” I endorse what Stephen Covey says in The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness. He points out that when it comes to dealing with people, fast is slow, and slow is fast. Take your time now so that you won’t have to spend twice as much time later patching up the new problems created by your haste.
I chose an annoying, but fairly innocuous example for this article. Many office problems start out with fairly innocuous issues that tend to grow and multiply if left unaddressed. Even if a monster issue arises in your office, however, these tools can help you tame it.
Debra Bruce (www.lawyer-coach.com) practiced law for 18 years, before becoming a professionally trained Executive Coach for lawyers. She is Vice Chair of the Law Practice Management Committee of the State Bar of Texas, and board member and past leader of Houston Coaches Network, the Houston Chapter of the International Coach Federation. She can be contacted for questions or comments at 713-682-4353 or debra@lawyer-coach.com.
Post Date: April 21, 2008
Does Lawyer-Speak Create Workplace Dysfunction?
Dan told the group what he thought was the appropriate course of action to take. No one voiced any opposition, so he took steps to set the plan into motion. Later he was surprised to get feedback that Karen thought he was controlling and railroaded the group into doing things his way. Dan felt dumbfounded and frustrated. If Karen had another idea, why didn’t she speak up in the first place?
Have you ever been in Dan’s shoes? Or do you identify with Karen’s perspective, acquiescing to someone else’s way of doing things when you don’t really want to? The problem may be as much a matter of conversational styles as substantive disagreement, according to Deborah Tannen, Ph.D., bestselling author and linguistics professor at Georgetown University.
In her book Talking from 9 to 5: How Women’s and Men’s Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit, and What Gets Done at Work, Tannen points out that many people expect ideas to be explored through verbal opposition. “When presenting their own ideas, they state them in the most certain and absolute form they can and wait to see if they are challenged,” says Tannen. “Their thinking is that if there are weaknesses, someone will point them out, and by trying to argue against those objections they will find out how their ideas hold up.”
I would suggest a corollary to Tannen’s observation. Sometimes people merely state their preferences in a clear and direct manner to get the discussion started. They may be opening the negotiations or brainstorming. They may not intend to insist on their way as the only way. They are expecting to hear other opinions.
Law firms tend to have a culture that encourages verbal opposition. Perhaps it comes from our adversarial training. Perhaps the law attracts people who already prefer an oppositional style. Nevertheless, not everyone uses or understands that style.
Some people take challenges or disagreements personally. For them it feels like an attack or criticism. Instead of honing and clarifying their thinking, it clouds their mind with emotion and makes them doubt what they know. They do not function at their best, and the organization loses the benefit of their experience, knowledge and perspective.
When such people disagree, they may fear that controverting a forthrightly stated proposal will damage the ability to work together effectively. So they keep mum, but store resentment. Even lawyers who are quite comfortable testing opposing counsel may shy away from an “argument” with a co-worker or from challenging the boss. Staff, who have not received training in adversarial skills, may go completely mute and keep some essential information to themselves, rather than face off with a lawyer who loves a good verbal tussle.
If you are having miscommunications or difficult relationships in your law practice, what can you do? In some firms the unspoken reaction is, “Those wimps just need to get a thicker skin and speak up if they want to be heard.” Tannen might say that is half right. She reports: “There is no one best way. Any style of speaking will work just fine in some situations with those who share the style. The most common culprit is style differences.” (Emphasis added.)
Since you can’t ask everyone you deal with to read this article and adapt to your style, you may need to develop some alternate behavior strategies. Here are my recommendations.
-
1. Be willing and able to flex to another style.
2. Notice the impact you are having on the persons with whom you are communicating.
3. If you are not certain you are having your intended impact, then
-
a. request input,
b. state your positive intentions,
c. reveal your expectations, or
d. check out your assumptions.
After reading this article, to be more effective next time, Dan could state his position and actually request push-back. He could say, “These are some of my thoughts on the issue, but I want to hear yours, especially if they differ from mine.” Another approach would be to state his expectations and check out his assumptions. “My expectation is that we will help hone each other’s ideas. Since I’m not hearing any refinements or other suggestions, I’m assuming you really like this idea. Is that right?”
For her part, Karen could offer input by saying, “Are you open to some additional perspectives on that?” Another way to have input without encouraging oppositional behavior might sound like this: “That sounds like it might work. I want to make sure we don’t miss out on any good opportunities, however. Would you be ok with brainstorming all the ideas we can think of before we evaluate our options?”
Some of you may be thinking, “Why should we do all this dancing around? It takes too long and requires too much effort.” Because no man is an island. Because too heads are better than one. Because a stitch in time saves nine. And all those other reasons that are so true that they have become cliché.
You may find other approaches that work for you. Please share with me your experience as you try flexing your communication style for increased effectiveness. Or… give me your push-back on the thoughts I have expressed here.
Post Date: April 10, 2008
ABA Says Collaborative Law Is Ethical
Some lawyers question whether a lawyer can fulfill her ethical duty to zealously represent her client in a collaborative process where the parties agree to open communication and information sharing. The challenge mainly arises out of the requirement that the lawyer must withdraw from the representation if the collaborative process breaks down, and the parties pursue litigation. In August 2007 the ABA published its Formal Opinion 07-447 about Ethical Considerations in Collaborative Law Practice, and opined that the Collaborative Law process is ethical.
This is an important stride for the Collaborative Law process, and for clients. Today many clients want lawyers to help them resolve disputes without getting so caught up in “winning” that they lose sight of the real interests of the client. Clients know that all-out warfare is often deadly to their health and well-being, as well as to their bank accounts.
The Christian Science Monitor recently published a succinct and informative piece on Collaborative Law and the recent ABA Opinion. If you want more information about Collaborative Law, check out the website of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals. You can also read an article I wrote a few years ago about the spread of Collaborative Law from family law disputes to business disputes.
Post Date: October 10, 2007