The Importance of Messaging, Part 2: Identities: Talking Over, At, To, and With People

“I am whatever you say I am/if I wasn’t, then why would I say I am?”  ― Eminem

“I’m all about respecting people’s beliefs, but to what extent am I responsible for their self-image?” - Dave Chapelle

Generations, gender, nationality, job titles, and subcultures: whether it is one or a mix of them, people in the 21st century have a very strong belief in exploring, discovering, and constantly recreating themselves. It isn’t just a phase for young people, it is a human condition to question their identity and recreate themselves. Some people prefer the term “Hispanic”, others like “Latino/Latina”, some go into more specifics like “Chicano/Chicana” and “Cuban”, or some even use “Latinx”. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant–it’s what they prefer to identify with and it is your job not to necessarily understand, but to accept it and work with them rather than to correct them. 

The same goes for gender and pronouns: you can agree or disagree with them all you want, but remember that these are human beings with feelings and experiences. If you prick anyone, they will bleed. If someone’s partner dies in an accident, they will grieve like you would. If you buy them a red velvet cupcake, they’ll love you like they love fish tacos. 

One of the big oversights in recent years is trying to accommodate everyone without trying to understand or work with them. Part of messaging is talking with people, not to or at people, and most especially, never talking over people. In order to get to that kind of communication, you may make assumptions and the resulting mistakes that could trigger some unproductive responses. 

Here’s a brief breakdown of talking to, at, over, and with people:

Talking to people: This is the default that many people do, and it’s not necessarily wrong, but it is not as effective as it could and should be. The emphasis of talking to people is equivalent to calling up customer service or being spoken to by a police officer: it is transactional, it is an emphasis on unequal engagement, with authority and power in one individual over another. This doesn’t invite openness or freedom and comfort, but on the plus side, it is helpful for setting boundaries, such as when a person asks too many personal questions and makes you uncomfortable.

Talking at people: This is the kind of thing you will associate with advertising, whether it’s an abrupt commercial interrupting your marathon of Happy Days or a pop-up ad on YouTube, and most unwelcoming, a telemarketer or a street hustler. This goes beyond transaction and doesn’t even try to consider what you feel, but is agenda-based, where someone is unloading their burden on you, regardless of what you think or feel, and your thoughts and feelings are merely obstacles in the way to manipulate you or to disregard you to get their point across. You will even find a variant of this where a person talks on and on and on (especially about themselves and how much they think they know) without considering if the people around them are getting bored. Avoid this at all costs!

Talking over people: This is the worst kind of communication you have, and is what you usually encounter when there is a heated argument and disagreement. You will find this when people try to force their religious or political views on others, especially if they disagree and don’t want to even consider it. Think of a person who won’t even listen to what you’re saying and even interrupt you mid-sentence to disregard you and make you feel small. This is the kind of communication that should be considered non-communication, as not only is it highly ineffective, but it kills any future communication without immense effort on the offending person to make effort to listen and consider. You know that guy? Yeah, don’t be that guy. 

Talking with people: This is the gold standard. It is the kind of thing that leaves every interaction productive. The key to this is to go beyond verbal communication into non-verbal cues that allow you to listen, be present, open, and most importantly, interested in the other person’s thoughts and feelings. Instead of trying to get your point out to convince them, you seek to hear them out and help them understand your point without necessarily agreeing with you. You can respect someone without agreeing with them, and you can listen and consider without compromising yourself. 

Having looked at these four communication styles, ask yourself the following questions:

Which style do I think I am doing? 

Which style do others perceive me as having?

How effective has the style I have been using in saying what I mean and meaning what I say?

Which communication style do we use in our workplace?

Which communication style do we consistently strive for when engaging our partners, collaborators, colleagues, managers, and constituents?

If you haven’t figured it out, the primary style you should use is talking with people, and at worst, you can talk to people. If you aren’t consistently employing that approach, it’s time to do some self-reflection and exploration with your peers in order to improve.

Dale Carnegie’s wisdom of “seeking first to understand before being understood” can’t ever be underemphasized here. Identities are hot topics, and it is precisely why we need to address them because people need to maintain a shared dialogue before it becomes a monologue in order to reach a mutual understanding and appreciation, again, even without necessarily agreeing. 

Within the same workspace, a person may prefer to be called a Latina, while her nonbinary colleague prefers Latinx. Both have their own experience that leads to these views and identities, but it does not and should not invalidate either or both. Likewise, when they are addressing people of shared heritage or identities, what is the proper noun? Think for a moment. The answer should always be, “What do you prefer to be called?” Simple as that.