About communication in companies with Šimon Steffal – part 2

Šimon is a psychologist and long-time mentor in the field of communication and education. Thanks to his passion for learning and extensive work experience, he founded Mindset Mentors in 2019. With it, he teaches teams to communicate with respect, specifically, openly and with a clear goal – to achieve better results and growth

This is the second part of our interview, which I conducted with Šimon in October 2024. You can read the first part at this link.

We ended the previous part of the interview with how to set up communication in a growing company. However, a company (whether growing or any other) is not always able to manage communication processes on its own. In such a situation, a communication audit can help. How do you know when it’s time? What are the imaginary red flags?

Typically, situations arise when two people/teams do the same thing, things hang in the “in-between space”, information silos are created, so information gets lost somewhere along the way or doesn’t flow where it should. Errors arise from inattention, errors from lack of processes. The system simply contains faulty parts that begin to manifest themselves fully as the company grows larger and, above all, more complex.

We can also see this in the numbers. Performance starts to drop, profitability decreases, frustration increases and more people leave than usual, they stop enjoying their work, they are burned out. You can see this in the mood of the company and in the fact that people start to complain that something is not working. The well-known “someone should improve it” appears. These are typical red flags and indicators that the matter needs to be addressed.

Communication strategies rarely save us in such a situation. Communication is only an observable property of the entire system. The underlying cause is processes, settings, agreements. As a rule, it is a systemic problem and can only be solved by (re)setting the system. It is not just about communication. Everything is interconnected.

It is a good idea to do a communication audit preventively, for example every three to four months. Go through the communication channels, what information we communicate and why, which is key, who is in charge of it, where it is collected, whether it is relevant, how we work with it further…

And is it worth doing a questionnaire for employees as part of the audits to get feedback on how they perceive the communication?

That’s one way. It depends on how big the company is and whether it offers a safe environment for saying things out loud or signing them. Sometimes it’s better to collect answers anonymously. It may be more effective to randomly select 10 people from the company and conduct in-depth interviews with them. And discuss with them the situations they are experiencing.

The second thing is that companies do not respect the principle of the so-called double-tap. That is, it is necessary to communicate things at least twice to be sure that the result will be what we want. This absolutely applies to strategic communication, such information must not flow through only one channel and only once.

That’s the beginning of the end. Strategic information must go through at least two channels, critical information through at least three. The chance that someone will notice it on one of the channels is growing rapidly, and thus the chance that they will continue to work with it in their actions or decisions. HR sometimes overwhelms their colleagues terribly. For example, when they send the information “you will find popsicles in the kitchen” through the main channel to a company where 70% of people work remotely. And then they are surprised that people do not read the channel. Logically, when most of the information is irrelevant to them. People learn to filter completely naturally. Because many of us are experiencing information overload at this time. That is why we filter, we optimize. And why read a channel where there is unnecessary information for me?

As leaders, we act in good faith, but we do not think through the consequences.

So we can safely send some information three times, but think about which ones.

One hundred percent. It is good to have a list of critical information that everyone should know. Or strategic information that is primarily informative.

In reality, it may look like we give the information at an all hands meeting, where we all meet, a record or recording of the meeting will be made, so that those who could not come will also receive the information, and then we make a “snack” out of it, which we send out in a newsletter, etc. This covers several channels and the chance that we will hit the person in at least one of them is consequently higher than if we relied only on the all hands meeting itself.

Now you’ve got me hooked. I was intrigued by your post on LinkedIn about ineffective meetings. Especially in corporations, it’s often a big problem. So how do you set up meetings correctly?

It’s going to be difficult in large companies. Their culture is primarily built on “being seen”. The essence of this is that I’m seen, that I’m doing something. That I’m active and that I’m involved in a lot of different activities. Meetings are then overused because they are a tool for “being seen” functioning.

How to make the time spent together good? First, write down what kind of meetings we have, what they are for and how often. For example, all hands or a monthly information meeting is a source of important information and is rather passive. Most people listen and accept information that is essential to them for some reason. And that’s absolutely fine. The question is whether we need to have the same type of passive meeting in smaller groups, where you just listen to the update – it could definitely be replaced with a summary in the chat or a short asynchronous video.

We want to spend time together mainly when we need to think of something, agree on something, agree on something. In other words, when we really need to use the connection of brain capacity. Creation in a group is much more effective than in one person and asynchronous creation is an order of magnitude more difficult.

But most meetings are rather unformative, people just wait for their five minutes to come, and the rest of the meeting sits with their thoughts elsewhere. The dog is buried in that, that we do not see the point in spending time in this way.

It is a terrible shame that most of us are in victim mode. We feel that we have no power to change this practice. And so we suffer together in this system. But the truth is that at least in medium and small companies, practically everything can be changed. When there is a will and there are no fundamental barriers in the form of an egotistical leader, things can be improved, people naturally bring ideas, try new things and psychological safety is deepened.

So how do we go about making that change?

When we call a meeting, we should justify why we are calling it. Tell people in advance why they should go there, what is expected of them, and above all, don’t forget to check out. It’s super simple: Was it beneficial and why? Was it worth it and why? What specifically needs to be improved? Thanks to this, we can then jointly name the problem, agree on and support changes. Only in this way will we not spend time inefficiently, unprofitably and will not be complicit in a dysfunctional system.

And how do we behave if I say something but it doesn’t fall on fertile ground?

The important thing is that you tried. That you came across a signal – here they don’t want to listen. The worse option is a positive reaction that then fades away. Giving hope that then dies.

Worse than this is stonewalling, when you say something and literally no one listens to you, they simply ignore you like a buzzing fly. And if it really annoys you and it’s really important to you, you need to consider whether you’re in the right job and can possibly afford to leave.

But there are people who experience satisfaction in areas other than work and are willing to sacrifice this reluctance to change things when everything else is fine. Someone doesn’t go to work for fun, they don’t enjoy it, but it’s not a place for self-realization for them either. They have that somewhere else. They coach hockey for children, collect grades, play sports and compete… Or they are an expert in an area that doesn’t support them, so they do it in their free time, etc. So they don’t find value in their work and, to put it very simply, they don’t care a bit about what they do. But we can’t be mad at these people for not being the most passionate about their work, for not being as committed when it’s not important to them. It just means we haven’t been able to “ignite” them or create an environment for them to find it. Everyone would like to have committed people, but that’s not the reality.

In interviews, you mention that when you were 20 or 18, you didn’t know what kind of job to pursue. Even today, many young people and Generation Z are hesitant and fluctuating. What should companies do in terms of communication to be able to reach this group?

In the company, I ask people from HR or team leaders why they think this is happening. Answers like “We think that…” are an indicator that they don’t know what they want at all. It’s just assumptions.

If a 20-year-old leaves me after 6, 8, 10 months, I would ask why I couldn’t keep them. We often point the finger at them, saying that they are the “broken”, lazy, etc. But it shows that I am not capable of self-reflection, I am not capable of working with the fact that I can’t create an environment in which people would want to stay longer.

And maybe I should ask myself what I can do about it or if it’s even important to me. It’s always easier to blame others than to look at myself and say, I’ve had a company for 20 years, I’m 50, I don’t really understand young people, I think they’re like that and poppy, they don’t want to work hard and they don’t want to answer my phone on the weekend. And they don’t want to work after six in the evening. And they’re unavailable. And they call it work-life balance. And when I was young, I worked hard. I had three jobs. And so it was right. That shows that I didn’t do one fundamental thought exercise.

I didn’t say to myself – these are my needs and my version of the world. And it’s completely okay that I demand this in my company. And I know that I will attract a certain type of people. But I can’t complain that my idea of ​​work, functioning and needs is not the same as the others around me. That’s a wrong view of the world.

Management should always ask themselves one question: Why would anyone want to work here?

We should not look for fault in others, but start with ourselves. Otherwise, we will miss the train and in ten years it will be many times worse. Because all the people who work for me and are efficient will retire.

And one more group in teams. And those are introverts. How to approach communication with them? Often they can be people who do not participate in team activities or events at all and can be perceived as not being interested in others and not supporting the team.

Here I would turn to the idea that we feel bad when some of our colleagues do not go to company events such as company beer. That idea itself is actually turned on its head.

Only those who want to go to informal company events should go. I can go to everyone and tell them that I would be very happy if they came, but I should be completely okay if they do not come. And the fact that they do not come must not be seen as a black mark anywhere.

“I get a letter for not going to the company bowling.” “We have a company boat trip down the Vltava River, but I don’t feel like being with my colleagues from work this weekend. But if I don’t go, I know I’ll have it on my plate.” I really hear this from people and it’s wrong. Because we put pressure on people to comply, to be a part of it, and if they don’t, then… That doesn’t lead to a good corporate culture.

And to those introverts. It’s a spectrum. Dividing people into just two poles and attributing characteristics to them based on those is not only shortsighted and frankly, quite stupid, it’s also dangerous. We’re all unique and have different needs and attitudes that change over time and are highly context-dependent. And that’s how I would approach it – with curiosity and an open mind.

And what would you advise introverts themselves who find themselves at social events?

I’m a proponent of wearing polka dots (a bit of a joke, but not really). A super extrovert would have a yellow polka dot, a super introvert a green polka dot. And I would know right away what I’m doing. 😊

Seriously. It’s perfectly normal to excuse yourself from a conversation, go get a drink and never come back. It’s not disrespectful. For example, you can just say, “Thank you so much for talking, I’m going to go get some air now.” It’s perfectly fine to name how I feel out loud if I’m worried about how others might perceive it.

But of course, you need a safe environment to do this. And if you do, the only way to get your inner world into other people’s heads is to put it into words and name it. There’s no other way. In order for others to understand how you feel and how you behave, you need to translate your world and perception to them. You can’t expect others to understand your needs, inner processes, and value settings from how you behave or act without describing it in words that are understandable to others.

 

So you’ve come across a common problem in couple communication, where a number of misunderstandings arise simply because we don’t communicate enough and we think that “the other person knows”.

In psychology, there is a concept called the illusion of transparency. It belongs to cognitive distortions. It is the tendency to think that others are able to read what is going on inside our minds very well. Able to guess our moods, needs, expectations.

In reality, however, everyone is primarily interested in themselves and relates things to themselves. So even when I look at you, I’m thinking mainly about myself. In reality, we know pretty much nothing about what is going on inside the other person, unless we have a really deep relationship or a natural talent for it (or a really looooooong amount of training).

And yes, it is one of the biggest problems in relationships and my acquaintances who have become couples therapists confirm this. The biggest obstacle to any relationship is the huge amount of unspoken expectations and disappointments from not meeting them. People rarely talk about their needs and expectations. They expect others to understand how they feel, sort of out of thin air.

Communication is the foundation of any relationship. And it doesn’t matter if it’s a work relationship, a family relationship, or a partnership. But in a partnership, it’s extra important because people spend the longest time in it. If it’s safe to talk about what I feel and what I need, it’s really beneficial to do it hand in hand with a reasonable interest in the other person. There are systems in which it’s definitely not safe, and there I have to think for myself whether I’m able to find fulfillment or satisfaction in some other way, or if I’m really not giving it, it’s hurting me, and then it’s definitely better to raise anchors and look for happiness elsewhere.