When we have information to give, the communication doesn’t start and end with just one email, announcement, or conversation. Effective communication is more than just the info you deliver, or the words you say. It requires empathy. This is a note for anyone needing to communicate strategic shifts, return-to-work policies, performance expectations, or even layoffs.
Tamsen Webster and I discuss why her work is driven by her desire to only do things once! How the risk of change belongs with the person or organization asking for it, how to understand the why behind how people approach change, and the first step in building buy-in that most people skip. She shares why leveraging pain is almost always guaranteed to fail long-term and how it’s almost always possible to find common ground (and if it’s not, to have a way to identify those differences clearly and without judgment).
To access the episode transcript, please scroll down below.
Key Takeaways:
- Every decision has a story. Every action or change we decide on has won the argument even if it is only internal.
- It is important to understand the story, the heart of the message, surrounding the conversations about change.
- Pain is the ally of quick action, but a brain in pain is not a rational brain. Once rationality is resumed, those decisions are often reconsidered.
- If people don’t understand what you’re saying it doesn’t matter how powerful or important what you are saying is.
“Anchor the outcome of the change in something that you fully acknowledge and you share with the person that you’re talking to.” — Tamsen Webster
Episode References:
- Tamsen Website: Why Great Stories Are Empathy Machines
- Dia Bondi: How to Ask Like An Auctioneer
- Sarah R. Moore: It’s Possible to Parent AND Lead without Punishment- the Brain Science Behind It
From Our Partner:
SparkEffect partners with organizations to unlock the full potential of their greatest asset: their people. Through their tailored assessments and expert coaching at every level, SparkEffect helps organizations manage change, sustain growth, and chart a path to a brighter future.
Go to sparkeffect.com/edge now and download your complimentary Professional and Organizational Alignment Review today.
About Tamsen Webster, Message Designer and Author, Say What They Can’t Unhear
Part message designer, part English-to-English translator, part magpie, Tamsen Webster helps leaders craft their case for large-scale change. In addition to her work in and for major organizations such as Harvard Medical School, Fidelity Investments, and Klaviyo, she’s a judge and mentor for the Harvard Innovation Labs, a professional advisor at the Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship, and has spent over 10 years as the Idea Strategist for one of only nine legacy-level TEDx events in the world. She was named to the Thinkers50 Radar in 2022 and is the author of two books, Find Your Red Thread: Make Your Big Ideas Irresistible and Say What They Can’t Unhear: The 9 Principles of Lasting Change. She lives in Boston with her husband, two sons, and two brindle Greyhounds, Hazel and Walnut.
Connect with Tamsen:
Website: messagedesigninstitute.com
Book: Say What They Can’t Unhear
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/tamsenwebster
FREE RESOURCE: The Compact Case, designed to help people apply the principles of Say What They Can’t Unhear to their own case for change. thecompactcase.com.
Connect with Maria:
Get the podcast and book: TheEmpathyEdge.com
Learn more about Maria and her work: Red-Slice.com
Hire Maria to speak at your next event: Red-Slice.com/Speaker-Maria-Ross
Take my LinkedIn Learning Course! Leading with Empathy
LinkedIn: Maria Ross
Instagram: @redslicemaria
X: @redslice
Facebook: Red Slice
Threads: @redslicemaria
FULL TRANSCRIPT:
Welcome to the empathy edge podcast, the show that proves why cash flow, creativity and compassion are not mutually exclusive. I’m your host, Maria Ross, I’m a speaker, author, mom, facilitator and empathy advocate. And here you’ll meet trailblazing leaders and executives, authors and experts who embrace empathy to achieve radical success. We discuss all facets of empathy, from trends and research to the future of work to how to heal societal divisions and collaborate more effectively. Our goal is to redefine success and prove that empathy isn’t just good for society. It’s great for business. When we have information to give, the communication doesn’t start and end with just one email or all hands announcement or even just one conversation. Y’all, we’re skipping some steps to ensure folks believe us agree with the principles underlying the change and are moved to act. Effective communication is more than just the info you deliver or the words you say. It requires empathy. This is a note for anyone needing to communicate strategic shifts, return to work, policies, performance, expectations, or even layoffs. Today you’ll hear my second conversation with Tamzin Webster. Part message designer, part English to English translator, part magpie. Tamzin Webster helps leaders craft their case for large scale change. In addition to her work in and for major organizations such as Harvard Medical School, Fidelity Investments and clavio. She’s a judge and mentor for the Harvard innovation labs, a professional advisor at the Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship, and has spent over 10 years as the idea strategist for one of the only legacy level TEDx events in the world. She’s the author of two books, find your red thread make your big ideas irresistible, and her newest book, say what they can’t on here the nine principles of lasting change. We discuss why Tamsen’s work is driven by her desire to only do things once, how the risk of change belongs with the person or organization asking for it, not the audience, how to understand the why behind how people approach change and the first step in building buy in that most people stumble on or skip, she shares why leveraging pain, one of the most popular approaches to persuasion, is almost always guaranteed to fail long term, and how it’s almost always possible to find common ground, and if it’s not to have a way to identify those differences clearly and without judgment. Such a great conversation. We went long, and it was worth it. So take a listen. Welcome back again. Tamsen Webster, to the empathy edge podcast. So good to see you.
Tamsen Webster 03:01
It’s the sequel. I delighted to be back. Maria. Hi. Heart you.
Maria Ross 03:06
I love it. Yes. Last time you were here, we spoke about the red thread and the wonderful work you do around message design and helping people build messages that have impact and that stay with people and actually compel people to take action. And so now you’re back with your book. What they can’t on here the nine principles of lasting change. So bring us up to speed. Why this new book? Tell us a little bit about your work. We know we heard a little bit of it in the bio, but tell us a little bit about again, that story of what brought you to this type of work, and what led you to this new book? Well, what brought me
Tamsen Webster 03:44
to this work is a lifelong interest in doing things once. So again, I don’t know, yes, exactly. And, you know, complicating that was things that are difficult to do at all, you know, so some personal, transformational changes that I work towards for quite a long time, like I lost 50 pounds over 25 years ago, and have maintained that I also overcame a 17 year panic disorder. But in my day job, my it was again about doing things once, mostly because I was working largely with resource constrained organizations, lots of nonprofits, lots of mission focused higher education institutions, and even though they had these incredible opportunities and we had a really important message to get out there, I just saw that Things weren’t always working, and so I’ve just really been focused for three decades now on how is it that we can communicate to people in such a way that we can accelerate the understanding and the adoption of new ideas? Rather, those are new to a person or new to the world. I’ve just endlessly, just fascinated by that. And the first book was the product of figuring out, or really it was the product of figuring out how to construct those messages, what they had to have in them and what order. And that was capturing a process that I had been using for five years previously, now for eight years. And I realized that all the reasons why I did those things, all those principles that I had collected over those years about how to do things once when it comes to communicating change. We’re not conventional wisdom yet, and so that’s really where the second book came from. Was to say, Okay, for those folks who aren’t ready to actually start crafting these messages, step by step by step, which is what the first book was about. These are the big ideas underneath this whole approach. What is it that we need to understand about people in order to inspire them to internally motivated action so aligned with your work? It’s ultimately a much more empathy driven way to communicate, but from my point of view, trying to figure out how to make that work in the business world where taking a lot of time to figure out how to talk to somebody, or that frustration of like, I don’t know how to work through their feelings, could come into play. So that’s really what this whole second book was all about. Well, I
Maria Ross 06:35
love it, and I want to make sure we’re being clear. We’re not saying that you necessarily are just communicating a message once and never revisiting it, right? Because I think that might be a takeaway for people of, yeah, I only have to tell them like, No, we’re doing layoffs and we’re having a reorg once, and then we’ll never have to say it again. No,
Tamsen Webster 06:54
yeah, exactly. Thank you for that clarification. It’s talking about the idea of having to do all the work to get a customer on board, and then they churn out, or a donor on board, and then they turn out, or you get somebody who says yes in a sales meeting, but then they ghost you, or folks that can’t ever really get them to get along or get on the same page in the first place. So this is, yeah, absolutely. Sometimes this is a process of communication, but fundamentally, that process starts with understanding what is it that somebody has to hear in order for them to even be on board in the first place? Just a quick example. So I saw on LinkedIn the other day, actually, a friend of mine posted a poll, and she’s a very well respected researcher, and the poll was about, what do you think is most important when it comes to getting an AI initiative off the ground in the organization? And so messaging and training was number one, and number two was build confidence with trying AI. And number three was something like, you know, demos and practices. And I remember responding to the first one saying, I know what this answer is going to be, predicting it was going to be number two, build confidence in AI, I said, but I don’t understand how you get there without number one, which is messaging. And lo and behold, when the poll came back, it was like, build confidence in AI, you have to communicate the purpose. And I’m like, That’s messaging. This is that little, tiny scenario captures perfectly. I think what happens when we are trying to do a change initiative, we kind of somehow skip to step two, which is we’re going to communicate with them, and then magic will happen, and people will be confident, people will be on board, etc. And I want to dial it back and say, What are you communicating? Exactly how? Because how you communicate, what you communicate from the very get go, can set the future of that change and can kill it right there. Yeah.
Maria Ross 09:04
And I think that’s the most important thing, is that often, when we’re dealing with that step, and I’ve done communication plans in the past for change management initiatives, yeah, communicate doesn’t just mean tell them the thing, like, if there’s more to it than that, right? Like, yes, send it in an email, say it in an all hands, like that’s not the end and the beginning of the communication. That’s just one aspect of it. So what the words you say and the information you convey is one thing, yes, the communication plan of that is entirely another. Oh, absolutely.
Tamsen Webster 09:40
And I would say, even in the I mean, I often think of this as step zero, because the vast majority of messages, and I’m talking now not just change official change management communication messages, but sales messages, marketing messages, all of these other things. All. Are missing at least one piece, if not five. And what I mean by that is, typically, folks will, you know, if they get to we’re doing this because, right? They feel like, well, that’s it. That’s all we need to tell people, right? We’ve got, we’re trying to achieve this outcome. So this is the effect that we want, and so if we make this change, we’ll get that. So we should do the change, because everybody agrees we want that. Now, if this was a change that you were skeptical of, would just saying it’s gonna get us that be enough. No, right? Not and not just because you know you’re a smart, capable, good human, it wouldn’t be enough for anybody to say, Oh, I trust you that just because you say this is going to get us there, that I’m going to believe you, because what’s happening there is that we are missing some really key information that not only is part of what people need to hear in order to even understand the rationale behind the change. Again, it’s not just it’s gonna get us this thing that we want needs to also be this is why, how we’re going to do it is going to get us there. People need to agree in principle that change will happen, and we almost always leave that part out. So a lot of times, this book is very much kind of a call to arms, a critical manifesto to say, hold up. Make sure that when we are talking to people, and we’re when we’re thinking about, what is this, the heart of the message that’s going to be how we have conversations about this change, how we build a communication plan around this change. We need to make sure that all the pieces that build the story in people’s heads is actually there.
Maria Ross 11:56
Okay, so let’s break it down for people, what are some of the things that they’re not considering that they need to consider as they frame the message and get it out there.
Tamsen Webster 12:07
Yes, well, I’d say related to what I just said, would be principle number two, that every decision has a story. And that’s something I said in my first book, and this book’s variation on it, is that really, when it comes down to it, every single action we take, any change we agree with, any idea we agree with, essentially, is because it is one internal argument in our head about why that action, that change, makes sense. And so one of the key things we have to understand is they’re like, this is human. This happens. Not only does it happen in everyone’s head, it also happens oftentimes subconsciously, without our conscious knowledge that it’s happening. So why this is so important is if you don’t give someone all the pieces of that story that they need to for it to make sense to them, then they will fill in the missing pieces with what is most readily available, well
Maria Ross 13:10
and sometimes the worst case scenario, yeah, exactly
Tamsen Webster 13:12
right, because, based on their wiring, their history with you or with the organization, or with changes like this, with just whatever messaging they may be floating around in the ether right now, if they don’t hear it, there’s a vacuum in that story. In order for them to process it, they’re going to fill it in. And so this is part of why I was talking about making sure that all the pieces are at least available, that you know what they are. So if somebody starts to ask you about them, yeah, you can supply them, yeah, because without it, right, they are going to fill in with their own pieces of information, right, right? And we forget that we have reached the decision about this change, because it makes sense to us, it satisfied a story in our heads. And we forget that we can’t just give them the beginning and the end of the story for them either. Because, you know, that’s as unsatisfying as any story would be if you just said, you know, once upon a time, there was a kid named Harry who lived under the staircase, and he defeated an evil wizard and saved all his friends, and you’re like, I think there’s something else that happened inside there. And I don’t even know how those two things are connected. Yeah. So this is the same thing is true, no matter what kind of communication we’re trying to get across. Does that actually change communication? Does
Maria Ross 14:38
that really bring in the aspect of transparency, of bringing people along with I mean, maybe some of those decisions have already been made, but letting people peek under the covers to say, well, this is how we got here. I know, you know, in my past, communications and marketing work, a lot of times when there was a big change, we would develop an FAQ of all the questions we thought. People might have about what this was, and then we were always adding to that, right? I’ve done that in crisis communications, but also in positive change communication, of course, yes. And it’s always great to be able to in your messaging address those objections that you know they might already have. But it’s not quite an objection. It’s more just like, Well, how did we get here? How was the sausage made? Right? In other words, really bad phrase. But you know what actually got us to this point? I know, especially when I was doing brand strategy projects. For example, the reason I would bring in a cross functional team into the workshop, people that said, I don’t know why I’m here. I’m an engineer. Why am I in this marketing meeting for six hours is because I wanted them to see the process. I wanted them to see when those decisions were made. They were in the room when it happened. And not everybody can be if you’ve got an organization or you’re trying to move 1000s of people or hundreds of people, so being able to tell them the story of what happened in the room they weren’t in can go a long way, from a transparency perspective, to say, well, first we considered this, and then here’s why we mixed that, and then we saw that we had this problem. Instead of just, let me just open the finished box and show it to you, and you will accept it. So is that kind of the link there of transparency, of also, just like thinking ahead, of seeing it from their perspective, and like you’ve been living, eating and breathing this change for maybe two months with the executive team, you are springing it on them now in this all hands meeting. So how do you think they might feel
Tamsen Webster 16:31
right if they don’t have the information that they need, then they are again, they’re going to fill in the blanks with whatever makes the most sense to them. And you know this so well, given your work like how people think affects how they feel about it. So if we are giving them what they need to think positively about it to what they need to think positively about it, then they aren’t going to feel positive about it. So what I just, what I saw over and over again was again, this kind of missing piece, and you landed right on it when it when talking about transparency. And the thing is, is that a lot of times what happens is that a decision makes sense to the C suite, which is where I’m often having these conversations, because of assumptions, principles, values, that are actually implicit, that they’ve never stopped to really think about why they think this particular thing makes sense. What is it that they believe that makes this particular approach make sense? And so what this trend? You know what I’m suggesting here, and not just because I think it’s a great idea, but because I’ve seen it work. I’ve been testing this approach for two years, and then much longer, because it’s really what’s sitting underneath the red thread is we are making those implicit assumptions that create that internal rationale for the change explicit. And what that means is, instead of layering on features, benefits, data, where we’re actually starting that conversation, even if we have to present a done deal, is saying because we believe this principle is true, and we believe this principle is true, yeah, that’s why we believe this change, which combines those two ideas, yeah, will achieve this thing that we’re anchoring all of this on, something that we all, collectively, or at least as an organization, agree that is important, agree that we want. And so what that does is it allows for the principles to come first, and what that allows for with the leader is that it means that not only is it a much more principled, literally approach and ethical approach, but it means that you find out very quickly where the actual misalignment is, yes, and that is really important. And this is true in a sales conversation as well, because, you know, if somebody doesn’t want the outcome that this would provide, right, they’re not a prospect for you, right? If they don’t agree with a core principle for why you develop your products or why you offer the services you do in that particular way. Again, not prospect. And so, you know, what I’ve just seen over and over again with my own experience with my clients, is that I would yeah, getting to yes is really important, but getting to know quickly, yes, just as if not more important yes than the other. So it will also tell you where there’s opportunity, if any, for negotiation. Well,
Maria Ross 19:51
okay, I have to bring up my dear friend dia Bondy, who I’ve had on the show, and I will link to her episode. She is queen of asking for the No She applied. As the principles of auctioneering to making a big ask. And one of those principles of auctioneering is that you ask for the no because then you know where you stand, yeah, and then you know what you need to back down from, right? And so asking for the no is a great way to get information. So I’m definitely going to link to her episode, because that is the crux of her work, and you should meet her. So I want to get to this idea of leveraging pain, which is a very popular approach to persuasion, right? We talk about either promoting benefits or helping people avoid pain from a marketing perspective, why is it almost exclusive, right? Why is it almost always guaranteed to fail long term, if you’re focused on leveraging pain.
Tamsen Webster 20:42
Yes, so and the key here is leveraging pain, not identifying with pain. Now, when it comes to empathy, identifying the pain that someone’s already experiencing is really important, as you know and acknowledging listeners know absolutely because not only does that allow them to be seen and feel heard, it also allows you to demonstrate a level of credibility and understanding that you know what it feels like to be in this position where they don’t have an answer to a question, they’ve got a problem that they haven’t been able to solve, they’ve got a goal that they’re trying to reach, and they can’t think how to reach it. So I want to make super clear that I’m not saying never mention pain, because when someone’s in pain, one of the most important things we can do is hold space for that pain, right?
Maria Ross 21:30
And it also gives you credibility, because if you don’t even acknowledge that there’s pain, if you’re like, it’s fine, it’s fine, everything’s fine, like, no one’s going to trust you at that point, right? Exactly. Yes, you can say this sucks and here, and we know why,
Tamsen Webster 21:43
and we know why, and, yeah, that’s the power play. Is that, you know, you can say this sucks, and you know, here’s what we understand as to why, or here’s what, even what we believe is what’s going on, based on the research, based on our clients, etc. Would I, you know, full stop, fully object to, on multiple grounds, is introducing pain in order to create a mental state where someone is more likely to act right. Because people know this, and that’s the problem. People pain is the ally of quick action. If somebody’s in pain, they will act to remove it. But here’s the issue, a brain in pain is an anxious brain. It’s a fearful brain. It is not a rational brain, yep. So it means that any action that is taken by an anxious, fearful in pain brain is probably going to get reconsidered when that person is no longer in that anxious, rational state, and not only that. So that’s why I think a lot of times buyer’s remorse happens, because you get into this like, oh my gosh, I have to act now, oh my gosh, everything’s going to fall apart if I don’t do this. And then when you have that moment to calm down, you’re like, Well, wait a minute. Not only was like, why the heck did I do that? Why the heck did I buy that, but the first time you have to explain to somebody else why you bought it, why you hired that person, etc. You’re like, ooh. And it also makes that person go, Well, who is this person to make me feel that way in the first place? Yes. So it also does damage. So what drives me bananas about leveraging paint in that way? I mean, I’ve literally had someone say to me on a webinar one time, well, that’s what my job is, is to make them sick so I can make them well. And I was like, oh, okay, well, we don’t see the world the same way. No, no, and that’s fine. Not everybody does, but the thing is, like, I don’t whether your drive is ethical or economic or efficiency, it’s there is no basis under which leveraging pain, introducing pain in order to induce action works for you long term,
Maria Ross 24:03
100% I mean, we know from science that your cognitive abilities, your executive functions, shut down when you’re under stress, when you’re in fear. We always talk about this from a culture perspective, right, in terms of if you are running your culture by fear, by command and control, and inducing anxiety and generating competitiveness, where there doesn’t need to be competitiveness, right? Your people are operating on half their brains, if that right? So those are not the kinds of people you want innovating in your organization, because they literally can. They
Tamsen Webster 24:35
can, yeah, and so,
Maria Ross 24:37
you know, and I, you know, from a lot of I have a 10 year old, I know you have kids too. Yes, a lot. We’ve talked on this show with a few parenting experts as well, talking about peaceable discipline and things like that. This idea that, you know, there’s like a visual where you hold a fist and it’s your brain, right? When a child or an adult is under stress, they flip their lid and you put the first four fingers up. And that means it’s all chaos, right, right? There’s no way that they can get out of that red zone and think clearly and make good decisions, and more importantly, that their decisions will stick for the long term, that they’ll actually learn something from that to carry them through for the long term. So yes, you got short term compliance, but not long term success. Exactly,
Tamsen Webster 25:20
exactly, speaking my language, absolutely. I love it. And so again, whether you’re trying to go from an efficiency standpoint, like I only want to have to have this conversation once, right again, at least introduce this idea once, then regularly. If you only want to have to introduce the idea once, then don’t be doing it in the situation of peer, pain and anxiety. In that case, what you want to be doing if you really want people to understand something new, which is a process of learning. By the way, any new idea means people have to learn. You cannot learn when you’re anxious or fearful, and so you cannot achieve what you’re trying to achieve, at least in that state. So part of what we’re trying to do, and why the suggestion that you had made earlier so is so valuable, when you’re saying, I get it. It sucks, but here’s why we here’s why it’s happening. It that activates curiosity. That moment you activate curiosity, that’s, again, a neuro, biologically validated way to start to reduce pain is to create curiosity. So again, efficiency, ethically, I think it’s a better thing to do, because I get I use, I start to question, particularly once somebody knows this about how an anxious brain can’t make a rational decision once somebody knows that and continues to use that device, I would question that person’s motivations. And that’s applicable in all sorts of fields and areas around us right now and, you know, months ago. But yeah, generally, I think that’s the thing. But also just from an economic standpoint, when changes don’t stick, when people back out of a deal, when people ghost you, when they just give you lip service to make you stop talking. That extends the process, which extends the effort, which extends the time, which extends the money invested exactly and who’s got that nobody does. So yeah, I’m pain is the enemy of long term change. Is how I looked.
Maria Ross 27:27
So I know you say people stumble at the first and most important step of building buy in, and that’s ensuring the audience’s understanding. So what tips do you have for folks that maybe do fall back on the idea of just, I just need to communicate the thing, and then I need to be done so I can go move on to other things. Like, what could they be doing to, you know, how I don’t know if they’re going to understand me. I’m using words they should understand. Like, how do I What kind of advice would you give to someone that’s like, how do I even understand if they understand? Yes, well, there’s a certain
Tamsen Webster 28:01
there are certain things that will help, and you’ve already touched on one of them, which is making sure that we’re talking in language and in concepts that are not only understandable to your audience, but recognizably true for them. Because you know you we can talk, just as a quick example. So this approach that I talk about can be used all sorts of ways. I also use it with my TEDx New England speakers who are assigned and, you know, we had one came into me one time, and he’s like, Well, now I said, you know, tell me what your idea is about. And he’s like, it’s about homeostatic regulation of criticality in the brain. Okay? And I was like, we can’t start there. I’m not saying we can’t end there, but we can’t start there, because this audience is not an audience of scientists. And so whereas you know homeostatic regulation and Criticality means something to you, they don’t, it doesn’t mean anything to them. So how can we talk about the same concept in an accessible way. Now, again, not trying to simplify or over simplify. Simplify. This is important. What we’re trying to do is to find the most accessible entry point to what you’re talking about. And so sometimes that’s saying, instead of calling it homeostatic regulation, you’re going to say it’s like maintenance. It is maintenance. It’s the maintenance of something, it’s the maintenance of balance, it’s the maintenance of a temperature, it’s a maintenance of a set point, and in the brain or in the body, we call it this fancy word, but as long as you understand the concept, the principle that we’re talking about here, we’re good. So I think that’s a really important thing. It’s one of the reasons why, fundamentally, this book is about, if I were going to state in one sentence what the big idea of the book is. It’s about the idea that, in order to truly build emotional, intellectual buy in, to get people invested in these ideas. Right? Then we have to build our case for it based on elements of an argument that they already agree with. And what I mean by that is, number one, make sure it is tied to something they agree they actively and knowingly want right now. And this is one of those things, if you’re a leader, you probably have a much broader, more strategic answer to that question than somebody who may be three that levels down from you in an organization. That person is probably thinking about how to make their job a little bit less annoying. There. That problem is, yeah, that person is probably trying to figure out, how do I make this particular quota? That person is probably thinking about, how do I make sure I deliver to my standards, the company standards in this relationship with this client, that’s what I’m talking about. We need to anchor it towards. Because if somebody can understand how it applies to something that they’re already moving towards, to something that they’re already working towards, then you don’t have to do nearly as much work. No, you know, again, just think of it from a physics standpoint, they’re already moving that direction. So it’s a lot easier to kind of draft in the direction that they’re moving than to try to shift the whole thing in the first
Maria Ross 31:18
place. This is the whole crux behind how I got on the empathy work with the empathy edge was a book for the skeptics to show them the ROI of empathy on the bottom line and to get them to empathy through something they already cared about, which is increasing engagement retention, lowering customer churn, increasing customer lifetime value, all of these things. And I did a TEDx talk called How to Trojan horse leaders into being empathetic. And it’s interesting because I got some, you know, pushback on that, of like, how can you make this thing that’s supposed to be this moral beautiful, like, we should have empathy for each other? How can you turn it into something that’s so cold and calculating? And it’s because you have to meet people where they are,
Tamsen Webster 32:01
yes, and very definition of empathy, yes, yeah.
Maria Ross 32:06
And they experience the benefit of it, they will be transformed from the outside in. So I don’t really much care what brings them to adopting an empathetic mindset, because once they’re seeing someone else’s point of view, they can’t unsee it. That’s right. So it’s, I love this, like drafting in your work and this idea, and that’s that holds so true for marketing, as well as what’s in it for them, how can you tie what you do and what you provide to a problem someone already has and speaking it in their language? That’s right. So that ones are the voice in their head, and you’re not speaking above them or outside of them, because that’s going to get you a glazed expression, or
Tamsen Webster 32:46
down to them, or down to that place. And this is a place that I have another bone to pick, and that is this focus. It’s related to the leveraging of pain. It’s focusing on the real problem and and I put that in quotation marks with my fingers, not because there isn’t a real problem, but if somebody doesn’t know they have the real problem, you start the message there, then you’re in a already in for a world of hurt number one, if this is a marketing message, how are they going? How are you ever going to end up in their consideration set, because they’re not looking for anything you say you do, right? Exactly. We have to start with a problem they actively and knowingly have one that they know that they want the answer to, and by the way, as urgent and important version of that as possible. So can your product help someone be more successful. Can it help them be an industry leader? Yeah, probably. But you know what’s going to win, what’s going to be more attractive is somebody who’s going to help them understand how they can increase their profit margin by 5% in the next quarter, right? And so figuring those pieces out is really, really important. The second thing about starting from this real problem is, again, it’s kind of talking down to people. It’s saying, I know you better than you know you. And that’s a big old assumption I mean, and I mean that in a in every sense of the term, right? Like that is big, and it’s an old assumption. Because, you know, one of the main themes of the book, it’s the whole chapter four is very much about this idea that one of the main human drivers is that people want to be seen as smart, capable and good. And what’s important about this is that where we even if we just have understood that intuitively, what we end up doing is we end up twisting it and we end up making smart capable good conditional meaning, you will become like the messaging, essentially is saying in not so many words, you will become smart, capable and good if and only if or when and only. When you do this, you buy this, you agree to this, you see that I am right. And so part of what this is all about is to say you don’t actually know that person better than they know themselves. And even if you think you do, it really doesn’t matter, because if they’re not in that space yet, whatever you say to them won’t make any sense to them. It won’t like you’re at a different level of awareness than they are, not at that level of intelligence. So this is very much about saying, Okay, I’m going to start from the assumption that the person that I’m talking to is already smart, capable and good, and I’m going to think to myself, Well, why would a smart, capable and good person be doing something other than the thing that I want right now? What would they want? What would they be concerned about not having by doing this change? And what that does is it really avoids that. Well, I know what your real problem is. You basically say, I know what your problem is. You’re experiencing this thing that you know you’re experiencing right now, and what I’ve seen is that if we focus over here, then we can start to make some progress on it. But it’s not because you weren’t smart enough to see it in the first place. There’s probably a really good reason why you were doing that. And so that’s a big shift, but it has a lot to do, actually, everything to do with improving your opportunity for success. And back to your point about kind of backdooring empathy, what it allows leaders and business folks or just really anybody who’s communicating to do is start to understand cognitive empathy. What is somebody else thinking? Yes, and I would argue that it’s that really is the only thing we can directly influence with somebody else is how they think about something, because how they take that information and process it is completely up to them. In other words, that feeling that they’re going to get from those thoughts that’s not under your control or your influence, but you can influence the input of the thought, right? That’s what this is all about. Start from the perspective of, you know, my input I’m putting in there is, I believe you’re a smart, capable, good person, and that you want to be seen that way, and then the whole tone and tenor of how you frame that change will also change, and they’re going to end up feeling that, because that was part of what you put into the message in the first place. Okay, so
Maria Ross 37:38
as we wrap up, I want to talk about this idea of finding common ground, because it’s a very big tip that I give around strengthening your empathy and trying to put yourselves on the same side of the table, rather than it in confrontation. Yep, not meaning that you’re going to agree, not meaning all the myths of empathy. It doesn’t mean you agree, it doesn’t mean you’re going to do whatever the other person wants, but it’s just finding a way forward based on different perspectives of the same problem or the same issue, and so you say that it’s almost always possible to find common ground, and if it’s not to have a way to identify those differences clearly and without judgment. So give us an example of what you’re talking about, especially when you’re talking about maybe communicating a change like it could be anything from Return to office to layoffs to a completely different strategic direction. Oh, yeah. What are some ways that you have found work? Well, to find common ground? Well, it’s a great question
Tamsen Webster 38:32
to end with, because it pulls together a lot of the things that we talked about. I mean, the first thing is, is to anchor the change, the outcome of the change in something that you fully acknowledge and you share with the person that you’re talking to. So again, that may mean that you need to be talking to the effect of that change much more in the standpoint of this is going to make the day job easier. And you may be thinking where, and ultimately that’s going to do X, Y and Z for the bottom line or the top line revenue of the company. But for you, I actually do want to make your day to day job easier, because for me, it’s going to do this. So we want this to happen, then it’s about building that quite literal argument in their head. And the simplest, strongest way to do that is to back to Aristotle state the argument for it using two recognizable truths that put together make this change make sense. So for instance, kind of thinking off the top of my head there is, if we’re trying to implement, I’m going to use one of my client examples, but we’re trying to implement and face a strategic shift in our organization, and we want to make sure that our leaders are ready for it, right? That this we as a company are going to be able, we’re going to be ready to successfully execute this strategic shift. That’s where we’d anchor it, because leaders want to be successful. The C suite wants to be successful like we’ve got. The shift. We gotta make it and, yeah, there may be negatives for it, whatever, but we’re gonna anchor it there. And then let’s say that we’ve decided right that there’s gonna be some, you know, leadership development, some training, some assessment that’s going on to make sure that we are, in fact, ready for that. Now, if we just say so, we’re gonna do some training to make sure everybody’s ready to do the strategic shift, people are gonna be like training on what like and why and what’s that mean. So it’s about, again, explaining what why this. So again, using this is Vince Molinaro and the leadership contract, we work together to to sort this out. But you say, Okay, first and foremost, we believe that the most important thing that we can build in this organization in order to make sure that that shift happens is make sure that we’ve got accountability running. You know that we’ve got accountability because we believe that accountability is the ownership of outcomes. If we want to successfully execute this strategic shift, we need to make sure that we’ve got people owning the outcomes. We’ve got leaders owning the outcomes. But if it’s just one leader, or you can’t count on the other person to do it, that’s not going to work, because we also believe success requires execution at scale. So that’s what we’re going to work on. We’re going to bring in this company that’s going to help us scale accountability throughout the organization. Here’s how it’s going to work. And instead of where so the training becomes a how, like that’s lower down. But what it allows us to do is say, this is what we’re doing. In principle, we want to make sure we’re ready for strategic shift. That’s the big Simon sinekian, why, right? This is why we’re doing it. But what’s also really important is the why behind the how. We believe that accountability is the ownership of outcomes, and we believe success requires execution at scale. So those two things put together say that we believe that in order to be ready to execute this strategic shift, we need to scale accountability. Stop there like it doesn’t even take 30 seconds to get that out, and just pause for a moment, because that’s where you get a that’s how you’re going to know whether or not people are agreeing in principle with the change, because if they don’t want to be ready for strategic shift, they’re probably not great on your leadership team in the first place. Second, if they don’t agree that accountability is the ownership of outcomes or the success requires execution at scale again. So you see, this is where the common ground comes from, because what we’re trying to do is, in addition to anchoring it on something that we are fairly sure that we share in common with them, we’re also basing our explanation and our argument for it, our case for it, on things that we believe they will recognize and agree are true. And so if somebody says, Yeah, I don’t agree that’s the case, or I agree that this other thing is actually more important. Well now you’ve got a much more workable basis of understanding where the gap is, because if somebody ultimately says, Well, okay, yeah, scale accountability, but I believe we actually have to work on psychological safety. Okay. Well, then either we can talk about how accountability creates that, or we can start to say, Okay, well, let’s talk about psychological safety and how that could lead to accountability. But again, at this point, you’re just it is much more natural, and this is what I’ve seen over and over again, to go, Okay, well, we may just get to a point where we agree to disagree, underlying peace, and what we stay away from is my way is better than your way, right? It’s this, is why I believe this. And one of the things that I think is ultimately most important about this Maria is that it puts the risk of change where I believe it belongs, and that’s on the person asking for it. The vast majority of communications that are designed to create change, whether in thinking or behavior, are essentially asking the other person to take a leap of faith, to say, based on this evidence we’re putting in front of you, we’re asking you to believe that this is going to work based on what we say is going to be true. And what this approach does is it really flips it around and says, I believe that because I believe these things are true, which I believe you are going to agree is true too. This is why, in principle, this is going to work. Now, do you still need to actually go then and then do the work of making sure that someone agrees as possible and practice as well? Yes,
Maria Ross 44:50
absolutely. But back to what we’re saying at the beginning. I think we skip over this part. Yeah, almost every time, all the time, not every time. Because then that’s when you get into a tit for tat over tactics, yes, and you’re avoiding the issue that you both don’t fundamentally have the same goal. And you can bring this down to even a more practical level of have, you know, I talk about this example all the time, having a difficult performance review, yeah, as a manager and an employee, does the manager start out with the review, sort of setting the tone of like, here’s why we’re both here. Here’s what we both want to get out of this performance review. The goal is to help you do your best work and succeed. Can we both agree that that’s our underlying principle? So now we know that we both have positive intent. Right now we both know that it’s really might just be an issue of the tactics that we disagree on, but we’re not disagreeing on the fundamental principle or values, right? That we’re saying, that we’re stating out loud. And I’ve even used the example in talks that I’ve given of just like, you know, two folks having a disagreement about a strategy, and they get in a room to hash it out. And can we both agree that we don’t want to lose our jobs this quarter? Yeah, we both agree that we want to make our numbers like get down to that nitty gritty level of this is something we can actually recognize that we’re on the same page. And that’s why what you’re saying is so powerful. Because if that is not agreed upon, no discussion of tactics or strategies
Tamsen Webster 46:20
matters. Because one ever matters. Yeah,
Maria Ross 46:22
one person doesn’t agree that that’s why we’re here, and the other person does. So now you’re talking about a fundamental difference in the approach. That’s right, not just how to solve it. That’s right.
Tamsen Webster 46:32
Yes. I mean, that’s exactly it. I mean, I see message design as really three phases, and by and large, we skip the first two. Yeah. In other words, we go straight to the wrapping. We go straight to picking out the drapes and hanging the chandeliers in the house. And we haven’t actually made sure that the walls are going to stand and we haven’t put a foundation under it in the first place, right? And so it doesn’t matter how much data you’ve got, how snappy Your copy is, no matter any of that that’s or how eloquently delivered your talk, is, if people don’t understand what you’re saying, that’s the second phase, right? Like they need to make sure that you’ve got the information they need to get there. And even that doesn’t matter, which is what? Oh, this is another. I know we don’t have time, but story is not the end of the story. Like there’s something underneath the story. That’s the principles upon which that story, which is an argument, by the way, is based, right? So if we haven’t figured out from the beginning why someone would actually agree with it, why do we agree with it? Then there is. It doesn’t. Nothing else matters. Truly, nothing else matters. Yeah. And the bonus is, like I said, you can get to the core conceptual case for what you’re talking about in 30 seconds or less, and then you’ve got all that extra time to really engage in those conversations about it, to add that detail, to add that evidence, to add that what is it going to look like? In principle? To ask and answer all those other FAQs. But ultimately it says this is what I believe, this is what we believe. And yeah, are you taking a risk by putting yourself out there? Yeah, you are. But if you’re not, you’re taking a risk no matter what, and I’d rather know where that true risk was coming from, and being able to really spot it and work with it, or to determine, huh, this just isn’t going to work. And, you know, I think we’ve all had an organization, maybe that we work with, or maybe that we work for, that at some point, typically, if you leave an organization, it’s because something about those underlying principles didn’t actually align with you, right? And so this is really about saying, Yeah, we can wait to the disagreement to get to this, yeah, or we can start the conversation there, right? And be more productive from the beginning and being able to build forward from like, getting everybody on the same, yeah, it’s
Maria Ross 49:05
better to know that up front. And that’s why, you know, clarity is one of my five pillars of empathetic and effective leadership, because you need to suss out the problem sooner rather than later, or the difference sooner rather than later, and then both parties get to make a choice. That’s right, that they want to move forward together with it or not. But, you know, a lot of times there’s leaders that, in the name of empathy, avoid those difficult conversations, avoid those difficult discussions. In the name of, you know, either I’m trying to be nice or I’m just trying to make everybody happy, or that’s going to upset someone. But the empathetic thing is, let’s get it all out on the table so we understand what we’re actually talking about, and then we can both make a choice within that interaction if we want to move forward and make a change, or maybe we don’t
Tamsen Webster 49:50
see what I mean. It’s this funny paradox, which is, and I wonder if you’ve seen this too, Maria, is that I believe, to my core, that there’s a logic. To emotion. And what I mean by that is that how we feel about something, and I mean, this made me be super clear that this is about intentional action, right? This is intentional action because, you know, someone can step out from the bushes and we’re going to be scared, and it’s not because we had a conscious thought that, like, oh my gosh, right? Like, it’s like our bodies reacted. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about like when you’ve had a chance to listen to somebody, when you hear when you’re watching an infomercial, when you’re watching a TED talk, when you are sitting with someone who’s trying to pitch you something, and you know they’re trying to pitch you something, right? What you’re listening for is for those pieces and parts and how you end up feeling about that whole thing is whether or not like those pieces that you fill in fit. Not just logically, does this plus this add up to this, but because fundamentally, those decisions are based on beliefs which are not rational, right? So we use this logical structure with illogical, irrational thing. And so to me, this is good news, though, for leaders who are afraid of empathy and that kind of thing, because by taking something down to its core, logical structure and yet filling in the blanks of that logical structure with belief, we actually depressurize this whole situation and by taking it on ourselves. Ken, if you don’t believe in this change, why would they if you can’t find a reason that you can 100% get behind about why this is the case they’re never going to get about get it there either. Now are there sometimes changes that just aren’t in the best interest of the people you’re talking to? Yeah, yeah, there are. Are they going to be able to suss that out no matter what you say to them? Yeah, they are. So again, back to this like it’s they would rather understand their rationale, right, than feel good about it. What doesn’t feel good is when they don’t understand, because that’s when the feelings will come in, because the thoughts will drive that Well, why didn’t they tell me? Why did they like say it was this, when it was actually this? Why didn’t I know about this rather than saying, here’s what’s happening, here’s I know it’s not in your best interest, but here’s why we had to do this. This is why, again, don’t sugar coat it. This is not inventing concepts and principles to make people feel better or to make you feel better about your brand. This is absolutely a process of excavation. What is actually driving this, with you know Jim Duterte at the UVA calls it the deep rules of an organization. Also notice like, espouse theories versus theories in you. She probably know this too, right? And so what we’re looking for is, what are we actually using to drive these discussions?
Maria Ross 52:52
Awesome. Tamsen, I love it. Well, we’ve gone over, but this has been such a great conversation. We will have all your links in the show notes and a link to your book. But for folks on the go, please tell them the best place they can get in touch with you. Your
Tamsen Webster 53:05
best place is message, design institute.com, that’s where they’re going to find me and all the things that we do to help people do all of this work on their own, but with help. Love it. One. Love it. Love it.
Maria Ross 53:16
Thank you. Always so great to talk to you. I learned so much every time we interact, and I know my listeners will as well. So thank you for your time today.
Tamsen Webster 53:23
Oh my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me back, and thank you everyone for listening
Maria Ross 53:27
to another episode of the empathy edge podcast. If you like what you heard, you know what to do. Please rate, review and share with a friend or a colleague, and until next time, please remember that cash flow, creativity and compassion are not mutually exclusive. Take care and be kind. For more on how to achieve radical success through empathy. Visit the empathy edge.com there you can listen to past episodes, access show notes and free resources. Book me for a Keynote or workshop and sign up for our email list to get new episodes, insights, news and events, please follow me on Instagram at Red slice Maria, never forget empathy is your superpower. Use it to make your work and the world a better place. You.
