I learned to stretch my speaking and writing out in college. We would have to write 25 page papers on topics I think would normally take 1-2 pages. This forced me to develop the skill of being more verbose in my writing, which over time translated into speech as well. It’s more about providing a narrative, rather than just hitting the bullet points.
This is a blessing and a curse. While it can make certain communications sound better to the right audience, sometimes an email will end up being so long that people won’t read it. Then a new challenge arises. How do I structure my writing, or speech, so people can know at a glance if it applies to them, while also providing the full context for those who need it. I’ve experimented with different options over the years, but don’t think I’ve really nailed it yet.
While you don’t want to be seen as “cold”, I don’t know that going full “management-speak”, talking a lot and saying nothing, is the right goal. I work with many of those people, and we have side-chats where people complain about these jokers monopolizing the whole call, providing 0 value, and leaving no space for people that have important and relevant information to add.
I think the better goal is to find ways to warm up your current communication style, rather than completely swapping it out for one that is also very problematic. Part of this is simply practice. I got much more comfortable in meetings and on calls when I was doing them all the time. It also really helped when a lot of those meetings were about things I really cared about and I was the domain expert. Being the expert on the phone helped me to be more comfortable and confident in what I was saying, and I could speak from a position of technical authority. When I’m less confident about a topic, I’m much more reserved and shy when talking about it. The people who loudly and confidently talk at length about stuff they clearly don’t know anything about are a huge pet peeve of mine. They might sound good to the uninformed, but they are toxic to an organization, as they spread vast amounts of misinformation. They are ignorant, but people trust them due to the confidence they speak with. This is a dangerous combination that should be avoided at all costs, imo.
I never read the whole thing, but I assume the book, How To Win Friends and Influence People, would be one that could help. It’s often recommended in scenarios like this. Just don’t go overboard with the “use people’s names” thing. Some people over do it, and it because awkward and obvious they just read some book that told them to do that.
This is a blessing and a curse. While it can make certain communications sound better to the right audience, sometimes an email will end up being so long that people won’t read it. Then a new challenge arises. How do I structure my writing, or speech, so people can know at a glance if it applies to them, while also providing the full context for those who need it. I’ve experimented with different options over the years, but don’t think I’ve really nailed it yet.
While you don’t want to be seen as “cold”, I don’t know that going full “management-speak”, talking a lot and saying nothing, is the right goal. I work with many of those people, and we have side-chats where people complain about these jokers monopolizing the whole call, providing 0 value, and leaving no space for people that have important and relevant information to add.
I think the better goal is to find ways to warm up your current communication style, rather than completely swapping it out for one that is also very problematic. Part of this is simply practice. I got much more comfortable in meetings and on calls when I was doing them all the time. It also really helped when a lot of those meetings were about things I really cared about and I was the domain expert. Being the expert on the phone helped me to be more comfortable and confident in what I was saying, and I could speak from a position of technical authority. When I’m less confident about a topic, I’m much more reserved and shy when talking about it. The people who loudly and confidently talk at length about stuff they clearly don’t know anything about are a huge pet peeve of mine. They might sound good to the uninformed, but they are toxic to an organization, as they spread vast amounts of misinformation. They are ignorant, but people trust them due to the confidence they speak with. This is a dangerous combination that should be avoided at all costs, imo.
I never read the whole thing, but I assume the book, How To Win Friends and Influence People, would be one that could help. It’s often recommended in scenarios like this. Just don’t go overboard with the “use people’s names” thing. Some people over do it, and it because awkward and obvious they just read some book that told them to do that.