Written Presence: What Your Slack Messages Say About How Senior You Are

Introduction

One of the biggest changes to corporate culture in the last 10 years might not just be remote work, but also Slack. My name is Ramona Shaw, and I'm the host of The Manager Track podcast.

How Slack Turbocharged Workplace Conflict

In late August this year, Priya Parker was on The Daily at The New York Times and she made a point I've been thinking about for quite a bit. Her argument is that Slack did not just change how we talk at work, but that it turbocharged conflict.

Anybody can now say anything to hundreds of people at once with no sense of how it lands on the other side of the screen. And most leadership teams never made a deliberate decision to run their culture this way. It just kind of showed up as an app that somebody downloaded or the organization downloaded, and then it took off.

She also borrows a term from Amanda Ripley's book, High Conflict, which is conflict entrepreneurs. Every organization has a few people who are in it to stir things up, and you know who I'm talking about. Not you, but we all know the people in the organization who like to ruffle feathers or stir things up, and they know it. And a tool like Slack is very good at handing them a stage.

Now, here is why that matters to you specifically. The perception of how senior you are gets made in rooms and situations that you are not part of, using text you wrote in about 40 seconds.

Why Your Writing Controls How You're Perceived

For example, a skip level reads three of your messages on Slack, a peer forwards your email two levels up and you didn't know, and none of these people are hearing your voice or picking up the warmth that you would bring in person or the context to your message.

So in writing, you really don't control the tone. The reader does. The reader will make up how you meant it, the tonality of the message, the level of assertiveness, mostly out of their own mood, their own day, how the week has been going, and whatever else they're already assuming about you. The only thing that you control is the structure of your message.

There's a study on this by Justin Kruger and Nicholas Epley from 2005. They had people send messages with an intended tone and then predict how accurately it would be read. Senders expected to be understood about 78% of the time. Receivers actually got it right about 56%, which is barely better than guessing. It's close to 50/50. And the part that should get your attention here is that the senders had no sense at all that the medium was doing this to them, the medium being the written format.

So in this episode, I will give you a framework called the Cold Read, a list of hedging phrases to strip out of your writing starting this week, a practice to use with people who use the written channels as a format to attack or undermine, and a two-word signal that will end the worst thread on your team before it does real damage.

The Cold Read Framework

Okay, let's start here. In writing, and in this case we're assuming you're writing to make a request, there are only three levers. It's the length, it's where you place your request, and how much of your message is spent asking or justifying why you're making the request. I'm going to give you an example here.

Say a client of mine sends his VP a Slack message on a Friday afternoon. This is a fictional scenario, by the way. 400 words, and it opens with an apology for the length: "Hey, I'm sorry to bother you," or, "I'm sorry for the lengthy message." Then it moves through the background, "I want to tell you about what happened this week," and so on. And then it covers what the team already tried, acknowledges that he is probably busy, and then arrives at the actual question that he has in that second to last paragraph. Now, every sentence is reasonable. It's context. And the person writing it is trying to be considerate.

But now let's talk about the receiver. What the receiver sees on his phone, and a lot of messages, including Slack, get read on a mobile device, is this wall of words. They read the first line, which is an apology, and immediately that message gets categorized: this is an anxious message. And either I need more time to sort it out and read through all of it, or I need a lot of emotional energy to deal with someone who seems stressed or anxious.

And oftentimes in a situation like this, if it isn't a quick, immediate, low-emotional response, people will file it away and say, "I'll get back to it," especially if they're trying to get through some Slack messages or Teams messages, or whatever other collaboration tool you use, in between meetings.

So something that starts with an apology and is a long text will usually have to be filed away and dealt with later. But what can happen in between is that the decision actually got made without that person and their input. And what the senior leader here might be thinking is, "I don't get a straight answer. They are not getting to the point. There's too much fluff here." And my client here was trying to be respectful of his leader's time, but consumed more of it than likely anyone else who wrote to him that day with a different structure.

So here is that same message now flipped around so that you're the one who is actually respectful of their time, and you're structuring your message appropriately for a channel like Slack. First line: project reference, Project Altitude, one decision needed from you by Tuesday. Do we ship with two integrations or hold out and delay to get all four in? So that is the main ask. There was a headline there, then a main ask right up front, and now I can add on context. The partner build is running two weeks behind. Holding for four pushes us to a later date. Shipping with the two lets us keep the date and add the rest next month. My recommendation is to ship with the two. If I do not hear from you by Tuesday at noon, that is what I will do.

This whole thing is probably sixty-plus words. The ask is in the first line, the context is capped, and there is a recommendation and a default. Because let's be honest, most of us don't get through all the Slack messages. There's always something that gets lost. And if we have an agreement with our manager that this type of communication and backup is okay, then this is exactly the right call to make.

Now, granted, there may be decisions where your manager most definitely needs to see it, and there's no backup as in, "If I don't hear from you, you just go ahead." There are certain things that won't fly, but only you know. And oftentimes we tend to want to get the approval or the validation from our managers more often than actually necessary, and more than they actually want to be involved in. So some food for thought there: if this example just made you nervous, that might be a good topic to explore with your manager. But what's clear in this situation is that the senior leader can answer that message at a traffic light. It might take 10 seconds to skim through and send a response.

So now let me call out a few examples of how we're undermining our own authority in a message like this. One of them is that we bury the ask. We feel like we need to first level the playing field and soften and warm up the other person before we can make an ask, because otherwise we're coming across too aggressively. And yes, in certain meetings that might be the case. But when it comes to Slack messages or written communication, that rule does not hold true.

When your request shows up in paragraph four of a Slack message, you have basically told the reader that they need to prove themselves first by reading all the stuff you wrote before they get to answer. And senior people do not experience that as thoroughness or thoughtfulness. What they experience is that you make them work. At a senior level, anything that's redundant, anything that delays, anything that's not relevant for the decision is getting in the way of them being effective, and most of them don't like it.

So your written presence and how you share things, especially knowing that other people will read it and your stuff might get forwarded, is actually really important. And it is a skill to learn. This is not the typical language or communication style that we just pick up by growing up, going to school, engaging with people in an office. That's just like a consultant has to learn how to write executive summaries and briefs, or how someone in the legal field has to prepare their legal documents. There's a certain type of language, a certain type of structure that works and that people expect and consider to be of high quality.

The same is true when it comes to this type of executive communication. In our case now, we're calling this the written presence, and we're especially focusing on Slack or other collaboration tools like it. That is a skill to learn. So if you feel like, "Going through my Slack, people around me are not doing that, I never really did that, so it's not important," that's not true. Just because other people aren't doing it doesn't mean it's not a useful skill to have.

When I ask leaders what drains them, what in their days is costing them a lot of time, often people will mention Slack or the like. And when I ask how much they have taught their team how to engage on Slack, it's usually zero. None. We've never really talked about this. But they get frustrated with the way that people interact on Slack. So it'd be good for us to learn and be proactive anyway. And if you're a manager and you're frustrated by it, it is also a sign that maybe we need to come together and sort this out.

But here we're not really talking about team norms. I want to stay focused on just helping you think about your communication style in writing and get more effective, even if it's just 10%. So the Cold Read is the framework that I want to share with you today.

In short, before you send anything, read it the way a cold reader would. Somebody scrolling on a phone, mildly irritated about something that has nothing to do with you, with eight seconds of attention and no preloaded goodwill reading that message. And that reader is not a pessimistic assumption. That reader is basically anyone on any given Thursday in the office.

Here is what helps you leave a good impression for this cold read exercise. First, ask first. So in the first section, maybe not the immediate first sentence, because that can be the headline, but right after comes the request. The first line is the most important: title, headline, or ask.

Structuring Your Ask: Context, Options, and a Default

So spend it on what you want, not on a preamble about why you are writing. "One decision needed from you by Thursday, it's A or B." That would be immediately relevant. Second, write the message. You can easily type stuff up as it comes to your mind, or if you're using dictation tools, talk it out and put it into Slack. But then before you hit Enter, pause and actually look through what you just typed up, find the most important sentence with the actual request in it, and then move it to the top.

If there is no such sentence, then you might not be ready to send it. Now, granted, not every time is this a request. But even if it's not a request, if it's an opinion, a vote, a topic that you want to bring up, the same holds true. Find the most important sentence, move it to the top.

Two, context comes after that, and context needs to be capped. The context to be shared is only what is necessary for other people to weigh in, to make a decision, to progress. The context is never about showing how much work you did. That should not be part of Slack, because it's always intended to progress the topic.

By the way, we talked about this in a previous episode, as this is a bit of a series around executive presence, and the same concepts apply. So check out episodes 328 and 329 if you missed them.

My general suggestion is to hard cap that context at about three sentences. Everything else can go into a thread or into a document, or you can save it up for the conversation. More than three sentences starts to create that wall of text and won't be read, or will be a signal that you don't know how to be concise, and that's the thing we want to avoid here.

And then number three, after the ask and the context come the options. Not open questions. An open question transfers your work to a busier person, especially if you're talking to more senior people. We assume that they're busier, not necessarily in time, but in load and responsibilities that they carry. Two named paths with a recommendation transfers a decision, not the work, which is most definitely what leaders prefer. So avoid saying things like, "What are your thoughts?" to someone more senior than you, unless it's very deliberately a brainstorming session.

Instead, you can do the two or the three. Let's use two here for an example. "Hey, we've got two options. Option A holds the date and ships a thinner package. Option B holds the scope but delays the date we ship. My recommendation is A." That's very concise, very clear. Now, you could have different options here as well, up to about three. Anything beyond that gets confusing, and they feel like you should have done better due diligence to bring it down to three.

Then the last point here is this idea of having a default. If I don't hear back, because stuff gets buried, then I will do this, and here's the deadline. A default, in essence, converts their potential silence from being a blocker into being a signal for approval. And it tells them that you are prepared to proceed without them, that you feel confident and competent enough to handle it.

Okay, now that we've gone through the ask, the context, the options, and then the default and the deadline, let's look at what else to do to make your written presence even stronger. And that actually has nothing to do with structure or what to add. It has everything to do with what to take out.

Phrases to Cut From Your Writing

So here are a few things to strip out, and I would suggest you start deleting them from any message you write starting now.

The first one is "just." As in just checking, just wondering, just a quick question. The word "just" is not useful. It diminishes and dilutes your message. It shrinks the importance of the request before anyone has read it.

The second one: "Sorry to bother you." No, you're doing your job. The apology tells them the interruption that you are making here is optional. Even if you have no formal authority and you're peers, and you feel like, "Oh, I'm going to bother this other team because they need to give me something," you're literally doing your job, and there's nothing to apologize for. You can thank them. You can be grateful, but not the apology. Apologies are great for when something actually went wrong, when you dropped the ball, or you missed something, or you wish you had done something differently because you didn't realize it had a negative impact. Those are the moments to apologize. You doing your job is not one of them.

The third one is "I could be wrong, but..." Delete it, and the sentence gets stronger and stays just as honest. No one is expecting you to know the future or for all decisions to come without any ambiguity. If there are ambiguities, call them out as ambiguities versus saying, "I might be wrong." That just signals that your self-doubt is getting in the way of your thinking.

And then the fourth one is "Does that make sense?" It asks them to validate your clarity. It either signals that you don't know how clear you were and how well you articulated it and now need them to validate, or it signals that you are not sure if they are smart enough to keep up with it. Both of those are not a good signal. Swap it out with something such as, "Hey, tell me if you see it differently," which asks them to engage with the substance of it instead. Especially in writing, the more concrete the questions we ask, instead of "Thoughts?" or "Does it make sense?", which are very vague and open-ended, the better.

Be very specific. Tell me if I missed an important factor. Tell me if you see this differently. Let me know if there are other people that should be looped in at this point. Those are useful questions, especially in writing and in that fast-paced cadence on Slack.

Now, one caution here, and I want to be clear about this. Warmth is not the enemy, ever. Stripping every human signal out of your writing can come at another cost, where you sound like a robot. There is a gray zone between warmth that you choose and softening that is compulsive because you don't want to ruffle any feathers, you don't want to come across as too aggressive or assertive, so you're buffering and hedging all your messages.

The line in between is to be very direct and assertive and clear and concise with your message, and then add your personal warmth to it. That shouldn't go. That is the add-on, but it's not the same as hedging and softening your message like the four things we just covered. "Hope the week is going well," or, "Hope fishing was fun last weekend," is very different from, "Hey, sorry to bother you." Those are not the same.

Handling Defensiveness and Public Call-Outs on Slack

Now let me loop back to where we started. Let's talk about defensiveness on Slack, because this is where we're getting back to the point I made earlier about The New York Times and The Daily. Some people use written channels as an instrument. The public call-out in a shared channel, the email that copies your boss on a question that did not need it, the thread that keeps reopening a settled decision in front of a growing audience, done very deliberately.

The instinct in those situations might be to match it, in writing, at length, since the record feels like it needs correcting. "Hey, I don't want this in writing for other people to see, so I have to go course-correct it." But that is a trap. Long defensive replies read as defensive, even if you are right. And every reply extends the thread you are now actually trying to end. If you have a person on the other side who kind of likes what's happening right now, they will keep going and going and never let you off the hook.

So the protocol is: answer once cleanly and then move to a different medium. For example, saying, "Hey, answering here so the record is clear. The decision was made on the 4th. The reasoning is in the document, and I own it. Happy to walk you through it properly, so I'm grabbing 15 minutes with you this afternoon. Calendar invite to follow." One reply and then nothing. If they keep going in that channel, do not answer a second time. You already gave all the information.

You said, "I'm going to talk to you." Now everyone else knows that this has gone off channel, and they won't draw a conclusion based on what's written there, because they know that they're missing part two, which takes place in a meeting or over email or whatever else, but not here on Slack.

Executive Presence Intensive

Okay, at this point, I'd love to introduce you to the Executive Presence Intensive. If what we're covering today, these conversations around how to communicate effectively, especially with more senior leaders, is landing, and if you are someone who wants to take this all the way, who takes this really seriously, who wants to have a strong executive presence because you know that at a certain point in your career, competence and knowledge are no longer the main game changer. It's now about influence and impact, and demonstrating all of that effectively with senior leaders. If this is you, then I'd love to tell you about the Executive Presence Intensive. This is an eight-week program that we run for senior leaders, the people who are already good at their work and now need the room to read them as the person who decides, impacts, and influences.

In this program, we go deep on exactly the kind of thing we're discussing today: how you come across in writing when nobody can hear your tone, how you brief people with power over you, and how you hold a frame when someone else tries to challenge or push back in front of an audience. The groups in the program are small, and it includes direct feedback and personal engagement on how you actually come across.

Plus you get to work through the program with a group of senior leaders who are in very similar positions to you. And that social aspect is a critical part of the program that other formats, like a LinkedIn course, a one-hour session, coaching, or a book, cannot provide.

Our next cohort starts on September 28. So if there's even a bit of curiosity about whether this is the right fit for you, use the link in the description to schedule a call. No strings attached to this call. We will talk about the program and your particular situation, and then together figure out whether this is the right fit for you.

With that said, let's get back to the episode, because I want to talk about the trigger breaker.

The Two-Word Signal to End a Heated Thread

So I promised in the beginning that I will give you a two-word signal, and here it is: the thread is heated. The problem with a tense thread in a chat or a collaboration tool is that ending it requires somebody to be the one who blinked, as an analogy. Whoever stops replying feels like they conceded. And so nobody stops. It's like saying we need the final last word. And so the thread keeps growing, and a lot of times the longer it gets and the more people get tagged in it, the bigger the audience gets as well.

And that is the conflict entrepreneur's entire operating environment. They text in public and basically leave no room to exit. So if you agree on a phrase with your project team, with your actual team, that determines what should be said to end a thread because it's no longer effective and it's distracting people, or going down a rabbit hole that takes us further away from where we actually need to be, then anybody can post it in any channel to anybody, and it basically means one thing.

This thread seems to be going sideways in a medium that cannot hold it, meaning there are people in this thread that should not be exposed to this, or we're going down a rabbit hole that needs to end. And most people, when we're in it, when we're the ones actually emotionally involved in whatever we're chatting about, may not see how this stuff lands and who else is watching.

But people who are a bit further removed from the topic, they see all that. But they may not want to call you out or embarrass you in the moment, so that code word is what levels the playing field and makes it so much easier for people to do.

So in essence, when that code word is dropped, the agreement is that the chat is stopped, and either you open a DM, a direct message, you create a separate thread if needed, or better, you pick it up on a call. It is not an accusation, and it's also not scolding. It's not intended to be any of that, and that needs to be really clearly said. It's also not saying you're right and the other one is wrong. It is just a shared exit that isn't supposed to cost anyone any status.

For example, there's a long thread about back and forth and should have and shouldn't have and what is expected and whatnot. Then someone says, "I still don't understand why we had to make this decision without having any input from the team." Then you could say, "Understood. Hey, thread is getting heated. Calling you at 2:00."

And by the way, if you don't like the word heated, you could call it any other thing. You can use the code word sponge. I don't know what, but you could use anything. I'm using "the thread is hot" or "heated" here to really call out that something is going on that needs attention.

But in essence, at that moment when I said "calling you at 2:00," the other person would respond with, "Sure. Works." It immediately sends the signal, "Hey, we need to take it offline," without it being inappropriate. And by doing this, people in the channel just watched two people handle friction without a public argument, which also teaches more about how your team operates than any values slide ever will.

Now, it's not to say that we shouldn't have conflict and friction and tension. That's all good, but there's the right audience for this. For some of this stuff, it needs to be between two people, not with an audience. For some of it, it needs to be part of the team, but not the 15 other people who are only partially involved in this.

To bring this to the point: writing is the only medium that is permanent, searchable, and forwardable, which I don't know if it's a word. So write a record of good judgment and know when to disengage, because being effective is more important than being right.

The Power Move and Close

So to lean into this, every message you send to somebody more senior than you opens with one line that you could forward unedited to someone above them. Test it on the next thing that you type up in Slack that's not just a yes or no or some banter. Would that first line survive being forwarded on its own without much context? If you just grab the first sentence, maybe two, would your boss's boss have an idea of what this is about? Or is this context that makes no sense? If it would survive, then the message is ready. But if your first line is an apology or a preamble, then you wrote it for yourself rather than for the person receiving it.

So bear that in mind. A few questions that you can ask yourself to honestly assess yourself on this. Open up the Slack or the Teams chat and scroll through, let's say, the last 20 messages that you sent. If somebody else were to look at those, would they conclude that you are making decisions, or does it seem like you're spiraling through work? Next, how many times this week did you apologize in writing for simply doing your job? And this can be sneaky, so be really honest in where and how you say that. And then next, when a thread gets tense, did you write more or did you pick up the phone? What is your default here?

And if you are leading a team, what is your team's practice around this? What do you observe in their interactions with each other? And where do you feel like, yeah, maybe I need to have a conversation about those code words and how we engage and what I would like to see, given that I get pinged on all day long.

It's totally okay for you as a manager to say, "Here is what I need in order to get through as many of your DMs or asks or chats as possible." This is like saying we need to have some norms about what goes into a subject line or how to indicate if something is urgent. That's just engaging directly and openly with each other on how to make sure we work well together and can actually be a high-performing team.

That's critically important. If that hasn't been a conversation yet, there's a huge potential for you to have massive improvement in the collaboration with your team after one conversation. If you want to learn more about this or how I could help you facilitate a conversation like this with your team, reach out to contact@archova.org.

And if you got value from this, please subscribe, pass this episode on to a friend or a colleague who'd appreciate it as well, and I hope you join us again next week with another episode of The Manager Track Podcast. I'll see you then.

If you enjoyed this episode, then check out two other awesome resources to help you become a leader people love to work with. This includes a free masterclass on how to successfully lead as a new manager. Check it out at archova.org/masterclass. The second resource is my bestselling book, The Confident and Competent New Manager: How to Quickly Rise to Success in Your First Leadership Role. Check it out at archova.org/books or head on over to Amazon and grab your copy there.