Hey folks, I'm Swati.
For those of you who don’t know me, I’m the Managing Director at Masters' Union.
Every week I have conversations I wish I could share with more people about all things career.
This newsletter is those conversations: what I'm seeing, what I'm thinking, what I'd tell you if we were grabbing coffee.
This week: on workplace communication.
Before we dive in, quick poll:
How do you prefer to communicate at work?
Back to today’s topic.
A founder friend called me last month.
She'd hired someone about three months ago. Sharp. Great credentials. Strong on the work.
"I'm thinking of letting her go." she said.
I asked what happened.
A senior investor had shared feedback on an analysis, pointing out concerns about methodology.
The new hire thought the concerns were misplaced. So she wrote back a detailed response addressing each point, explaining why her approach was correct.
Technically, she was right. The analysis held up.
But she'd sent it at 11:30 PM. She'd opened with "I think there are some issues with this feedback." She'd copied the founder and two other team members.
The investor called my friend the next morning, frustrated at being corrected by someone who'd been there only three months.
When my friend / the founder spoke to her about it, she was genuinely confused. "I was just answering his questions. Was I supposed to pretend I agreed?"
No. But she'd missed something nobody had taught her.
In professional communication, being right is only half the job.
How you deliver it is the other half.
And this isn’t a one-off case. I hear versions of this constantly.
It made me go back to a piece of research I'd read years ago.
Researchers at NYU and University of Chicago ran an experiment.
They asked people to send emails that were either sarcastic or serious, then measured how often recipients correctly identified the tone.
Recipients got it right only 56% of the time.
Basically a coin flip.
When you write a message, you hear it in your head with your tone, context, and good intentions.
You know you're being helpful, or efficient, or just direct.
The person reading it gets words on a screen. No tone, facial expression or context about your mental state.
They fill in the blanks with their own assumptions.
And those assumptions skew negative.
Research published in the Academy of Management Review found that people systematically interpret messages as more negative than the sender intended.
Short messages from someone junior to a senior usually read most negatively of all.
Her email was clear. But "I think there are some issues with this feedback" from a new hire to a senior investor, at 11:30 PM, read completely differently than she intended.
Employee heard: "I'm being thorough and professional."
Investor heard: "This person thinks she knows better than me."
And if you think about this pattern, you’ll notice it’s common:
The "EOD" message.
A manager sends a new joiner: "Need the report by EOD." Four words without any context. The manager was just busy, and to them horthand felt efficient.
But the person on the other end spends the entire day panicking, convinced they're in trouble.
The late-night signal.
People think sending emails at midnight shows dedication.
But it often signals poor boundaries or an expectation that others should match your hours.
Instead, write it at night and schedule it for 8:30 AM.
It completely changes the impression.
The CC problem.
Copying more people than required looks like you're escalating.
Not copying people who were on earlier threads looks like you're hiding something.
You're being judged on both.
When I talk to recruiters, I ask them: beyond skills, what makes you pass on a candidate?
A survey of nearly 1,400 Gen Z workers found that 57% aren't sure how formal their work messages should be.
51% aren’t sure when to follow up if they don't get a reply.
TL;DR: it’s less about personality / character and more about translation problems.
You spend years in environments where the argument either holds up or it doesn't.
Where being direct is valued, and where efficiency matters.
But workplaces run on relationships.
And relationships have a texture that pure logic doesn't capture.
Here's what I shared with my friend to pass along:
You write: "I think there are some issues with this feedback."
They read: "This person doesn't respect my experience."
Try instead: "Thanks for the detailed feedback. I've thought through each point and wanted to share where I see it differently."
You write: "Can we push the deadline?"
They read: "They're already making excuses."
Try instead: "I want to make sure this is thorough. Would it be possible to get an extra day? Happy to discuss tradeoffs."
You write: Nothing (you saw it, you'll respond later)
They read: "They're ignoring me."
Try instead: "Got it, will send a detailed response by tomorrow."
You write: 👍
They read: "Did they even read what I sent?"
Try instead: "Makes sense, thanks!"
The content is identical but the reception is completely different.
The founder eventually didn't let her go.
She had a direct conversation instead, explained the gap between intent and impact and gave the new hire a chance to speak with the investor directly.
They had a 20-minute call.
The investor actually agreed with most of the methodology concerns, and bristled at how the message arrived, not what it said.
Today, the new hire is still there and doing well.
You don't have to pick one.
What's the most surprising feedback you've gotten about how your messages came across?
I read every email, so hit reply and let me know!
Swati
PS: If you like the Newsletter, feel free to share with someone you think will find it useful.