Junie George Varghese session

Introduction

On January 3, we had an engaging session by Ms Junie George Varghese, the Co-Founder & CEO of The 5th Mantra, a training venture for Business Communication skills. She is also a Training Mentor for IIT-Madras and a TEDx speaker. She has trained thousands of students and professionals in her career spanning over 20 years. The topic was “ Why even smart leaders avoid difficult conversations”

About Ms Junie George Varghese

Ms Junie George Varghese was featured by Yahoo Finance as one of the “Top 10 Communication Coaches to follow” in 2021. Her coaching sessions in Verbal & Nonverbal Communication have helped individuals overcome their communication barriers and express themselves with greater clarity and confidence. Ms Varghese has mentored 1000+ students and faculty members for the Trinity College London Exams, in Communication. Her clients include international sporting celebrities, corporate leaders and professional artists. Trained in vocal and instrumental music, classical dance, and being a voiceover artist, Ms Varghese uses unique and creative approaches to help people build a stronger rapport with others in their personal and professional lives.

Ms Varghese has completed her Masters in International Business from IIFT (Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, Delhi) and is certified by ICF (International Coaching Federation), Extended DISC International and Dr. Richard Bandler’s Society for NLP.

The importance of communication

We need to keep exercising to build our fitness. Same is the case when it comes to communication. There is no born speaker or born communicator. It is something that we can develop.

Communication goes beyond presentations and public speaking. This is a life skill, something that we use in our daily interactions with people.

Within communication, a challenging area is having difficult conversations. Two years back, Ms Varghese was working with a very senior pharma leader in a very renowned pharma company. And during one of the conversations, he made a very interesting statement. “I know exactly what I need to say. But I'm not sure I want to be the person who says it.”

Consider a few more sentiments other leaders have expressed (about difficult conversations) during training sessions conducted by Ms Varghese.

• Let's wait till appraisal.
• This phase will pass.
• HR should handle this.
• Right now, delivery is more important.
• They'll anyway figure it out.
• I prefer to lead by example.

All of us have faced situations where we hesitate to talk to someone, because of the nature of the issue. And with leaders, the pressure is even higher. People assume that they know how to handle situations and people.

The perception.

We have our own perceptions of what communication is, what leadership is, what is expected of leaders. But are these perceptions even close to reality?

Here are some of the skills we consider leaders should have.

Intelligence. We do like to believe that leaders are intelligent people. They must understand issues, process information and take decisions. They must have emotional intelligence and intuition.

Experience. We believe that leaders have handled multiple responsibilities and grown in confidence and in exposure.

Authority. We believe that with seniority comes greater decision-making authority.

Empathy. We expect our leaders need to be empathetic and people-friendly.

Now, what if these four skills that help us become a leader are also creating a problem when it comes to communication?

Intelligence could lead to overthinking and justification of our actions, resulting in rigidity.

Similarly, experience can lead to pattern bias. We think the past will repeat itself. Past experiences could embolden us, give us courage to do things. But they could also scare us from never attempting some things again, just because they didn't work the last time.

Authority could make us worried about our reputation. When we are in power, the people are looking up to us and watching us. So, we are concerned. How do we maintain this reputation?

Empathy can also make us more hesitant. Now we are worried about hurting people, their feelings.

So, the very skills that have helped us to succeed, can be threatening when it comes to communication.

The problem.

What is actually happening in workplaces? The reality is often far away from perception.

First of all, judgment distortion. There is a gap between what is being done and how we are thinking about it. For example, silence, in the Indian context is confused with respect and maturity. But silence is also a form of avoidance.

Then there is the abstract trap. It is important to state things with clarity. But when we get uncomfortable, we tend to use complicated language, vague sentences and jargons. So, our colleagues are not very sure what is expected of them.

The third issue is the ping pong effect. Whenever there's a problem, the first instinct is to point fingers. So when a crisis happens, we are looking for people we can blame. At the same time, our colleagues are finding ways to defend themselves. And this keeps going back and forth. This ping-pong effect leads to a gap not just in the relationship, but also in the version of reality that is being projected.

Power can also increase avoidance rather than courage. As a result, we have filtered feedback. We pick and choose information that we want to share with our team. And the feedback is not complete. There are some pieces of the picture missing. We are trying to overcompensate, justify, or play safe. Truth becomes expensive. Many people in leadership positions discover that the hard way.

Training programs focus on what to say, how to structure feedback, and which model to use. But we are still not addressing the key issue. What do people feel about themselves when they approach difficult conversations?

We need to understand what is happening and why we are avoiding these conversations. We can all handle difficult conversations. But the only question worth asking is what aspects are we avoiding, overlooking, or navigating around? In leadership communication, fear exists. And it's very important to acknowledge that. Only then we can figure out how we can handle it.

The cost.

What happens if this problem is not handled?

The multiplier effect: We think we are buying time, but in reality, we are buying damage at compounded interest. The act of postponing has a multiplier effect. The issue grows in size and complexity. Alternative narratives emerge. It is like a vacuum, where people feel free to put in their versions of reality, or their versions of predicting what outcomes could happen. And we have no control or awareness of these narratives.

Cultural erosion: People understand that there are some issues that will not be brought up. This will lead to dilution of accountability. For people who are underperforming or who have created problems, suddenly it looks like the leader is okay with it. And gradually, over a period of time, many things slacken. People start letting go of expectations, of whatever standards are expected of them. These costs are not immediate. So as leaders, we may be completely oblivious to the damage happening. But the truth is, it is happening.

Innovation blockage: When difficult conversations are avoided, there is no healthy conflict. There is no alternate viewpoint to challenge our thought process. That will bring innovation to an end. Because suddenly, we have people agreeing to do everything together, there is no new idea, or new approach.

Human sustainability crisis: Often, sticky issues are passed on to HR. We have taken the easy way out, but don't realize that the very thing that we fear is happening. The erosion of our credibility and identity. Suddenly, we are seen as someone who just likes to pass on anything that's uncomfortable or difficult.

And the irony is, this kind of delegation can lead to burnout. Usually, we would think delegating things to others would free us and make us feel happier. But when we delegate difficult tasks to others, there is an internal conflict and dilemma. Should we have done this? Should we not have done this? And this kind of conflict leads to burnout.

Micro failures: If one conversation is avoided, it can be considered a micro-failure. But when these micro failures stack up, multiple issues will keep coming up.

Job hugging: Employees literally hold onto the job, but they are not engaged. They know the leader is not really involved. Nor is anything great expected of them. But they want to hold on to the job. This way, they also prevent new talent from coming in as well. So, productivity declines.

Quiet cracking: Every avoided conversation is a quiet crack. And over time, it will lead to a messy compound fracture.

Mediocrity and turnover: if we are going to retain talent who is not engaged or productive, it is going to create a culture of mediocrity. People perceive that the leader is not concerned about productivity. So when the organization starts operating that way, the ones who are productive will look for reasons to leave the place. So, turnover is pretty high with places where engagement is low.

As per Gallup’s State of the Global Workplace 2025 report, worldwide, employee engagement has dropped to as low as 21%. 80% of the workforce Is either stuck, or they're looking for reasons to get away. And the loss in productivity is estimated at over $400 billion.

The cause.

We need to understand why we are avoiding these conversations.

Amygdala hijack: Whenever there is conflict, the brain perceives it as a physical threat. And the minute that happens, the emotion centre of the brain, which is our amygdala, gets into an overdrive. Freezing, snapping, getting overtly impulsive, or getting aggressive are typical responses during negative conversations.

It's not that people hate us. They're doing it because they're feeling threatened. Somewhere, their emotional center has overpowered their prefrontal cortex, the seat of logical thinking. So, this limbic system taking over logical thinking will lead to words and responses that are not positive at all.

So it's very important to recognize when it's happening to us. Are we feeling defensive? Are we getting unapproachable whenever we are put in a tight spot?

Cognitive calibration: That means the brain wires itself in the way we process information and the way we think about things. We are very creative when it comes to thinking of bad outcomes. We are much more conservative when it comes to thinking of positive outcomes. When we are constantly thinking what all could happen wrong, it will lead to decision paralysis. We will not be able to take a clear stand. We will try and leave it as vague and as ambiguous as possible. It doesn't happen with one incident. Gradually, a pattern is established in the way our brains are wired to think.

Suppose we ask people to describe an experience. Some will start describing with the good things of that experience. Others will start with what all went wrong. In both these cases, people had both positive and negative experiences. But there is a wiring that has happened due to our penchant to notice negative things earlier and faster, than things that are going well.

So, even in the case of difficult conversations, there is a calibration that happens. There is a pattern that we create, and we become a part of it, sometimes even without realizing.

Nice versus kind trap: Being nice is when we tell people what they want to hear. Being kind is when we tell people what they need to hear. Now, leadership is the ability to tell people what they need to hear. That doesn't mean the leader has to become, like, a headmaster or a disciplinarian. There is obviously a need to humanize conversations. But avoiding conversations, trying to play nice, will create problems.

We are binary in our thought process. We can either be a nice guy who everyone likes, or we can be a go getter doer who people can't stand. But obviously, we must marry the two. We have to stop looking at it as one or the other.

Complex cultural, regulatory, legislative landscape: People are scared. There could be lawsuits filed, trolling, regulatory action taken against them, etc. Leaders don't want to get into any messy situation. So, the best way out is to stay away from it.

Asynchronous friction: We have multiple mediums of communication today. How do we decide for which kind of conversation, which medium to use? In Crucial Conversations, the authors say we should match the complexity of the message with the richness of the channel. In a rich channel, means many elements can come in: visual clues, voice and nonverbal cues. Does the message require that kind of involvement?

Suppose people are told over an email, or a WhatsApp message that they are being laid off. It is a very inconsiderate way of handling a complex situation and a clear example of asynchronous friction. Laying a person off is an emotional issue. So, an email or WhatsApp message will be very inappropriate.

Not mapping the conversation: Before a difficult conversation, it's very important to have an understanding about the person, about what we are going to say, what direction that communication could take. And if it goes off track, how can we repair on the spot? That kind of mapping is rarely done. People think they will improvise. But improvisation does not even work with impromptu speeches, let alone difficult conversations. So difficult conversations must be thought of as an architecture, a blueprint, a plan that we build and go about executing.

Presence of AI: This is a perceived pressure that leaders have created for themselves. AI algorithms come with perfect responses. They have no fear of judgment or authority or consequences. They state things as it is.

So when there is AI with perfect communication abilities, we feel the pressure to become superhuman. So we start choosing the conversations that are more convenient. We will just leave the others for the time being or pass them on to someone else.

Now, there is no perfect communication. Everything is contextual. What works in one situation may or may not work in the next. So we must evolve and be flexible when it comes to having those conversations. The focus needs to be less on perfection and more on clarity and effectiveness. Is that person understanding what we are saying? That must be the goal. Not just perfect grammar or the perfect construct.

The way forward.

Ms Varghese shared a few pointers that could help in the way we look at difficult conversations.

Decrease conversational latency. Latency is the time between noticing a problem and finally, addressing it. Can we reduce it by a day, or by a few hours, consciously? We can identify a specific conversation we have been saving for later and go ahead and execute. When we complete a pending task, there is feedback to the brain. We begin to think: That wasn't so bad. I managed to do it. And that kind of feedback slowly needs to become a new pattern where we get comfortable, not by postponing but by doing things.

Reframe the question: Normally, the question we ask ourselves is, how can we delay it? Instead, we should ask: What meaning will our silence create? How are people going to view this avoidance? What is going to be the cost that we will end up paying?

And instead of saying, we want to have the conversation, but don’t know how to, we could ask: Which identity are we protecting by staying silent? We all are trying to create images. We have a certain image in our circle of influence. So, what is that image? And by staying silent, which image is being protected? Also, what identity can we strengthen by speaking clearly?

Concluding remarks

So, the essential question is: Will we lead the conversation, or will it lead us? Most of the times, it's the conversation that's leading us. The minute we decide to avoid it, or to stay away from it, we are being driven by circumstances. There is fear and we must acknowledge that. But at the same time, there are ways and reasons to counter that fear.

Peter Drucker once said, communication is judged not by intent but by what's being understood. So whether it's a problem, appreciation, or conveying our point of view, clear communication is going to be needed. And if we are a leader, or if it's a difficult conversation, all the more so.

Q&A