On this page
Office, working together on a piece of copy. Jonas looks at Maja’s screen and points out the problem immediately.
— Maja, this doesn’t work. Do it again.
Jonas thinks he has just saved Maja time and made the issue perfectly clear. Maja hears much more coldness in the sentence than he intended.
How does Empatyzer help choose the right level of directness in feedback?
Empatyzer helps you adapt the directness of feedback to a specific relationship in order to maintain the necessary precision without needlessly triggering defensiveness or making the other person feel attacked.
Features that can help:
- Comparison: Shows where you differ in directness, response to assessment and need for detail, which shapes how brief feedback is received.
- Tips: Offer guidance on how to give that person specific corrective feedback, but in a form that increases the chance that they will hear the substance instead of focusing on the tone.
- Talk to Em about a specific person: Allows you to prepare specific feedback for a selected person and check whether it includes observation, expectation and a sensible next step.
What really happened
Jonas believes respect means not wasting the other person’s time. If something does not work, he says so quickly and clearly. Maja believes respect also includes the way a difficult message is delivered. To her, the blunt “this doesn’t work” sounds harsher than Jonas means it to. When the roles reverse, Maja softens criticism so much that Jonas is not sure whether she actually expects anything to change. Both are trying to be respectful, but they are using different definitions of politeness. The conflict is therefore not about whether the feedback is true, but about how that truth is delivered.
What the research says
In difficult conversations, people are doing two things at once: exchanging information and protecting both their own and the other person’s social sense of worth. Research on feedback shows that communicating respect affects how feedback is received (facework; Trees, Kerssen-Griep & Hess, 2009). In teams, disagreement about a task can also be experienced as interpersonal conflict, especially when trust is low (task conflict and relationship conflict; Simons & Peterson, 2000). The research does not say feedback should always be soft. It shows that form changes how people interpret both the content and the intention behind it.
How to handle it
The safest approach is to separate the work from the person and add a useful direction immediately: “This version does not meet requirement X. Let’s change Y.” There is no need to wrap every criticism in five compliments, but respect can still be made explicit: “I’m being direct because I want to solve this quickly, not because I’m judging you.” If the other person tends to soften messages, it can help to check their weight: “Is that a suggestion, or something you need me to change?” The general rule is: clarity and respect are not opposites; a good message can contain both.
How Empatyzer and Em can help
Empatyzer can help Jonas and Maja stop treating their reactions as proof that the other person “communicates badly.” The assessment highlights differences in directness, sensitivity to tone, and the way people enter conflict; comparing their profiles turns those differences into a specific interpersonal risk. Jonas may underestimate the relational cost of his shorthand, while Maja may soften criticism so much that its importance disappears. Before a conversation, Em does not need to give either person artificial corporate language. It can help Jonas keep the clarity while adding direction and respect, and help Maja state whether she is making a suggestion or asking for a change. Team-level insights can show whether the same clash of styles appears elsewhere, while micro-lessons reinforce a practical standard: feedback can be brief, unambiguous, and safe for the relationship at the same time.
Sources
- April R. Trees; Jeff Kerssen-Griep; Jon A. Hess (2009). Earning Influence by Communicating Respect: Facework's Contributions to Effective Instructional Feedback. Communication Education, 58(3), 397-416. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520802613419 10.1080/03634520802613419
- Tony L. Simons; Randall S. Peterson (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102
Find an article
Enter at least 2 characters. Minor typos are OK.