Faith Meets Academia

Episode 56: How to Handle Workplace Communication Conflict

• Dr. Adrian Reynolds

Share episode

Send us a text

Have you ever walked away from a high-stakes meeting feeling small, even though no one said anything overtly harsh? You might be falling into the Mirror Trap: The subconscious expectation that colleagues should match your tone, hedging, and warmth. When they don’t, it feels like disrespect, but it’s often just a data-processing difference.

In this episode of Faith Meets Academia, we unpack why workplace communication conflict happens and how to stop it from derailing your projects. We combine the psychology of Communication Accommodation Theory with the Apostle Paul’s biblical strategy of "becoming all things to all people" to give you a practical roadmap for difficult conversations.

You’ll learn how to:

  • Escape the mirror trap: Separate tone from substance to protect your peace.
  • Reinforce your application of the "It’s Me" formula: A simple reset to turn blunt critiques into clear deliverables.
  • Practice positive accommodation: Adapt to direct communicators without mirroring their negativity.
  • Apply grace-based listening: Remove cognitive friction and lead with quiet confidence.

Stop the "tone wars" and start leading. If this episode helps you navigate a clash this week, please leave a 5-star review and share it with a friend or colleague!

WEBSITE: https://faithmeetsacademia.buzzsprout.com/2312145/episodes

CONTACT: faithmeetsacademia@gmail.com

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are solely my own and do not reflect or represent the positions, policies, or opinions of my employer, any organization or academic institution with which I am affiliated. This podcast is a personal initiative, and is not connected to my official/ formal duties and responsibilities as a university professor.

SPEAKER_00:

Hello friends and welcome back to Faith Meets Academia. I wish for you a most successful, blessed, restful, productive week. Before we dive into today's episode, I would like to just say thank you to you, those of you who have been tuning in for the past uh almost two years to Faith Meets Academia. Our supporters, our listeners are from 367 cities. Yes, Faith Meets Academia is heard in 367 cities, 47 countries, and six continents. Yes, this is only possible. This reach, this impact worldwide is only possible because of your engagement and your support because of listeners like you. So I just want to say thank you. God bless you. It's been a pleasure and will always be a pleasure to continue to bring you high-quality, high impact episodes that allow you to make this connection between what you're doing, what you're studying in your places of worship, on the job, in school, in college, and the word of God. As ministers of the gospel, we can't just expect people to automatically make the connection between what we're preaching and what we're teaching to their own everyday lives, their everyday challenges and struggles. It is our jobs, at least I believe it's my part of my ministry to help people make this connection. So thank you. I think today's episode is one that we can all relate to, especially for those of us in the working world, how to handle workplace communication conflict. Yes, I definitely know I can relate to it. Have you ever left a really high-stakes meeting? I'm talking about one of those meetings where you know you had to have the talk, a crucial conversation, as they would say. Or it could be just a casual conversation with a colleague in the hallway, right? And you left that conversation feeling totally discouraged or maybe undermined, disrespected, feeling like your expertise is called into question. But then on the other hand, if you had a transcript of the exchange of what was said, the actual words on paper, it might look a little different. No one yelled at you, they weren't using any curse words, nobody explicitly said, You are incompetent, you don't deserve this job, but yet you left that interaction feeling kind of small. As social beings, you know, subconsciously, when we enter a conversation, we're looking for the person on the other end to communicate in a way that reflects our own communication style. So, in other words, we're we look we're looking for them to mirror our tone. We can call it the mirror trap, if you will. We're looking for them to mirror our choice of words. So if we are polite and use hedging language, phrases like I think, or maybe we could, or perhaps we might want to, right? That kind of language that they call hedging. It's indirect. If we use that kind of language, we expect them to mirror that or expect them to do the same thing, speak the same way, really. And then when they don't, when they are direct or gruff, we interpret that mismatch, that conflict in communication. Sometimes we interpret that as a personal attack. And we think to ourselves, hey, if they really respected me, they wouldn't speak to me that way. They would speak to me the way I speak to them. That's the mirror trap. Because no. Sometimes there is a mismatch, and your tone, your demeanor may be very different than the person with whom you're interacting. And today our goal is to understand what's at play here in this dynamic, this type of interaction. We're gonna separate destructive criticism from constructive criticism. We're gonna look at how to handle workplace communication conflict without losing your peace, losing your cool, or losing your professional status or standing. So, welcome to episode 56, how to handle workplace communication conflict. Let's try to anchor this in a real-world case. I have to keep things general so as to protect professional identities. But I'll try to be specific enough so you can see what I'm talking about. And make no mistake, this episode will draw upon the It's Me formula, and you'll see as we go along. How do we apply this formula in the heat of the moment when the pressure is on? I have some personal examples that I would like to share. So I recently had to navigate a highly complex project, multifaceted project on the job with a lot of moving parts, multiple departments, high-ranking university faculty, and a significant amount of institutional oversight. If you work in higher education, you probably know the kind of stuff I'm talking about. This project had some hard deadlines and standards to be met, and a lot of eyes on the final product, giving feedback and critiquing and so on. And so, in this environment, and so in this case, I encountered communication styles that not only challenged my expertise, but also my peace. The first individual had a style that many would describe as gruff. Their feedback was just stripped of all professional pleasantries, if you will, for the most part. They would dive right into the work, and they would look at the work that I had produced, and they would say things like the math doesn't add up, or this doesn't make sense. At one point, they even used phrases like, This is basic, or this is common sense. I somehow managed to keep my cool. Somehow. Yeah, then there was another colleague who their style of questioning was very off-putting. To my ears, it sounded incredibly condescending. They would say things like, Why would you do X, Y, or Z? Or they would say something like that that wouldn't be desirable. Yeah, they would say they would ask questions like, Why would you want to do X, Y, or Z? Or what made you think that would work? I mean, in in that exact tone. And so these are the moments where I feel this physical reaction, right? Just boiling inside. Because it I felt disrespected. My internal monologue started running a mile a minute. Do these people know who I am? Do they know my credentials? Do they know my expertise? Do they know how much thought I've put into this? Do they know how many hours I've put into this? Do they know how many years I've been working on this? So I was falling into the mirror trap, right? My style of communication, my style of feedback is always polite, some amount of hedging, accommodating, understanding, seeking to discover or learn. It takes a coaching approach, right? Seeking to understand the backstory, the context for why key decisions were made or for why things were done the way they were. But on the other hand, these two folks in particular with whom I was interacting, communication was just very blunt. And so because they weren't mirroring my way of communicating, my initial assumption was that it was an attack on me personally. But I had to stop and engage in some critical self-reflection, right? In other words, I had to use these me formula, right? Do you remember the steps? Check out episode 55. I had to take a deep breath. Then I had to say, It's me. I'm telling you, it was hard. It was hard. Using this formula is this is not about lip service. It is tough. But once you start with that deep breath, and then you say it's me, and then you ask yourself, what role did I play? It works. So that's exactly what I did. I took a deep breath. I said, It's me. Then I asked, What role did I play? And so I had to figure out it's okay to ask follow-up questions too, right? Like, I had to figure out, like, was this person actually attacking my character or even my expertise, or is this just their standard operating procedure for how they talk to people? So I took a step back, I looked at the work again because hey, there just might be a possibility that an error, a mistake on my part was made. And that's okay. I'm okay with that. Right? There's always room for improvement. After a few more interactions with the first colleague I talked about, who came across as gruff, uncouth, if you will, I figured out that some of the things they were critiquing weren't developed by me. Of course, I was the lead for this project, so I had to own it all. But they were talking about one specific component of the whole picture that had been introduced by another colleague. Right? They were responding to some data in front of them with their natural direct style. They had a job to do, they needed to get it done in order for this project to receive the that seal of approval by other entities, right? And so they saw an issue and they just felt hey, and they just named it, right? In their direct way of communicating. That's disrespectful. Like, how dare you talk to me like that? I could have derailed the entire project, and it would have been a big distraction. It would have tarnished a relationship that was crucial for the success of the project. And thanks to the it's me formula, all I had to do was make some minimal changes, very minimal edits, and voila, all of a sudden things started to make sense, and the math did ultimately end up adding up. So let me tell you, this it's me thing works. I mean, yeah, I I took ownership, not lame, I just took ownership and took charge of fixing what needed to get fixed. If I had taken offense to the communication style, let me tell you, the project would have been totally derailed. So sometimes the tone with which one responds to you, even though you would prefer that they approached you differently, sometimes it's just data processing out loud. For some folks, whatever comes to mind, that's just how it comes out. There's no polishing it up, there is no thinking of how might this come across. There's probably some lack of emotional intelligence there. But if you are high in the emotional intelligence scale, don't expect everyone to be on your level because it's just it's not realistic. Now we're gonna draw upon theory called communication accommodation theory to help us navigate communication conflict, right? So in communication and educational psychology, there's a the there's this framework called communication accommodation theory. It was developed by Howard Giles. And this theory says that when we interact with others, we naturally adjust our language, our tone, yeah, even our body language, our nonverbal language, in order to manage social distance, right? So there are two main ways we do this. One is called convergence, and the other is called divergence. So convergence is when we adapt our style to be more like the other person. So if you're talking to a child, for example, right, you might stoop down a little bit, lower your height, get on their level, soften your voice, maybe even do, you know, your baby talk. If you're talking to a high-energy classmate or colleague, you might talk a little faster. If you're really animated, maybe you talk a little louder. So we converge, we lean in toward how the other person communicates to build rapport, to build a connection. Many politicians do this very well. And we do it to say, hey, I'm one of you. I'm like, you're safe with me, you're in my crew. Divergence, on the other hand, is when we maintain or even exaggerate our own communication style purposely to create a distance or a gap. Sometimes this is done to assert one's identity or express some sort of disapproval, or just to distance oneself from the other person. For example, someone might increase their use of slang or jargon or colloquial terms that the other person doesn't understand. They might speak in a louder or faster tone, or use more formal or informal language that than the situation really calls for, than is needed. Basically, is someone trying to show off that hey, you're not on my level, you're not in my category, or I'm more educated than you, I'm more well spoken than you. That's basically what this is saying. But here's the major point of confusion that sort of trips us up in the workplace, right? Someone speaks to you with a mean or gruff tone, that is, if they're diverging from your polite style of communicating, communication adoption theory, you should converge or you should match them. It doesn't mean that you should be disrespectful to them as they were to you. It's not saying that if they're loud, you should get loud too. No, that's not what it's saying. Converging with negativity is a race to the bottom. That gets you nowhere. In a professional context, and certainly in a faith-based context, accommodation isn't about mimicking or reflecting bad behavior, it's not becoming a mirror of someone else's worst day, it's about positive adjustment, right? So let's get back to my example with the uh colleague who was very direct and gruff in their way of communicating. Their method of speaking was direct, and another way to look at it is they valued efficiency over emotion. Have a million other people they're working with, and they have to think fast, whatever comes out, it comes out however it comes out. And so, in using positive accommodation, I didn't need to become rude back to them, I just need to become efficient. My reaction to their action needed to reflect the kind of language that I would prefer them to use. You got it? So, with this individual, if I continue to use emotional hedging or flowery language, I'm actually increasing the disconnect, the friction. I'm increasing the divergence. I'd be making it harder for them to process the information. So, guess what? You adjust. And so I I, after coaching myself, after applying the it's me formula, I just decided okay, I just I need to be very concise. I need to have a serious look on my face. Not gruff, not terse, but I need to show them that hey, okay, you mean business, I'm business too. And so I became concise, got straight to the point. And so, for example, instead of saying things like, I was feeling like perhaps we should look at the data because I just say the data shows X, and I recommend Y, for the following reasons. See, there's a difference there. Of course, I'm still kind, respectful, professional, but I adjust the language and to some extent the tone to bridge that conflict in communication, that communication gap. And so this prevents the cognitive tax, if you will, that occurs when communication styles are in conflict or when communication styles clash. So think about being in a meeting with a high-energy speaker who yells at the top of their lungs to because that's how they show their passion. Oh, I've been in those kinds of meetings, even in faith-based circles. And let's say you're more quiet, contemplative thinker, and yelling feels just aggressive. But when you apply the it's me formula, you would see that hey, it's it might not be directed at you personally. It's not like they like cursing you out, except they're like really unless they're really cursing you out. You know when somebody's cursing you out. But yeah, it might be that they're not, but it's not directed at you personally. It's just hey, it's how they run their engine. And if you sit there judging the engine. You miss the content, you miss the information. Now let's look at let's turn to the word. Let's look at Paul's doctrine, if you will, of adaptability or virgins. This communication adoption theory isn't just philosophical. We can find evidence in the Bible of this. Yes, the apostle Paul did this very well. He was adaptable in this communication style. Long before modern psychology existed, Paul was a master of putting in practice communication accommodation theory. So let's take a look at 1 Corinthians 9 22, where Paul says, To the weak I became as weak, that I might gain the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. I want you to sit with that phrase. Just let that phrase sit a bit. That part that says, I have become all things to all men. Some people might interpret this as being fake. Okay, you just you just shift your identity just based on who you're talking to, then who are you? What's your true identity? No, it's not that Paul was a chameleon, if you will. He wasn't changing his core identity in Christ. He wasn't even changing his message. He was changing the method to remove unnecessary barriers. So to the Jews, he spoke as a Jew. He used the law, the Torah, the history, right? To the Greeks, he spoke as a Greek. He quoted their poets, he used their logic and their philosophy. Paul knew that if he had insisted that everyone communicated in the way he communicated, the gospel would be hindered. It would be limited. The impact, the reach would be limited. He knew that if he forced a Greek to understand Hebrew cultural nuance before they understood the concept of grace, let's say, he would lose them. Now bring this back to your office, your peers, your team, your group. Bring this back to your faculty meeting, team huddle. If we insist that every team member, every colleague uses the same type of politeness, soft spokenness, or hedging that we would prefer, the project might get stuck. Right? So if I'm gonna try to insist that my more direct get down to business colleague asks me about my weekend and my family before we talk about the project, then I'm taxing, if you will, the interaction. And so grace-based listening gives the other person the benefit of the doubt, right? It says, Hey, this clash, this conflict of communication style, might just be that. It's just one of style, not of the heart, right? So Paul wasn't accommodating of other people's way of speaking because he was afraid of them. He accommodated them because he loved them enough to want them to understand his message. And when you adjust your communication style for a difficult colleague, let's say, you aren't surrendering, you're leading. You're doing the heavy lifting so that the mission can succeed. Alright. So, guess what? In episode 57, I'm gonna introduce to you a toolkit and a reflection guide that will help you to navigate these kinds of interactions where there seemed to be a communication mismatch or communication conflict in terms of style, tone, etc. Alright. You gotta come back next week to get this toolkit. It's gonna be good. You're gonna find it really helpful. Until then, thanks for tuning in. I know this episode has been a blessing to you, so do me a favor, go to Spotify and drop me a comment. You'll see the comment section. I want to hear your thoughts. I want to hear how this is working for you. And you can do that for any episode, particularly in Spotify. You can leave a comment specific to any given episode. On Apple Podcast, you can leave a five-star review if this episode has blessed you. If you're using the strategies, the principles, the formulas, leave a review, right? Let's spread the word, let's spread the love, and keep the conversation going. Thanks for stopping by. Until next week, God bless.