Beyond the Score: Dealing With Mixed Messages
Last week, we explored cognitive dissonance, the mental discomfort we feel when two conflicting ideas are at war in our minds. We saw how this unease, if left unexamined, can really do a number on us. This week, we're diving into a very specific—and common—source of that dissonance for leaders: mixed messages.
As a conductor, I have to ensure there is congruence between my physical gestures and the musical intent. When there is a disconnect, chaos can ensue quickly. Wild-eyed facial expressions and grandiose physical movements don’t match the delicate nature of a lyrical movement being performed by a small ensemble. This is confusing to musicians, and more importantly, it's frustrating.
If you’ve ever been in a situation where two conflicting messages are hitting you at the same time, you have been the victim of the dissonance that exists from mixed messages. As leaders, we're called upon to deal with this all the time. Learning to identify and address these mixed messages is key to navigating the potential unrest they can cause if left unattended.
Take for example, passive-aggressiveness, which is an indirect expression of negative feelings. Instead of confronting a conflict, a person's anger is expressed through subtle, disguised actions. This is a classic example of a mixed message because it creates dissonance between a person's words and their behavior. For a leader, it's a difficult form of communication to deal with because the verbal message is in direct conflict with the underlying behavior. This kind of behavior erodes trust and makes it impossible to solve the real problem, as the underlying emotions are never truly addressed. For the leader, this circumstance is fraught with anxiety because you never know which signal to receive and which one to reject.
This is why mixed messages cause internal unrest: we simply don't know the intent or meaning behind them. The most effective way to handle these scenarios is to shift the burden of clarity back to where it belongs—on the communicator. You can redirect the relational energy from a place of anxiety to one that is calm and direct.
Here are three research-based strategies you can use to make that transition:
Focus on Behavior, Not Attitude: Calmly and factually describe the specific behavior you're observing without accusing the person of an attitude. For example, "I noticed the report hasn't been submitted," instead of "You're being passive-aggressive."
Create Psychological Safety: Recognize that this behavior often stems from a fear of direct conflict. Invite honest conversation with open-ended, non-judgmental questions.
Set Clear Boundaries: Consistently and calmly set clear expectations for future behavior. This signals that indirect communication is not an effective way to get their needs met.
This approach helps to bring the hidden issue to the surface and encourages more direct, healthy communication.
Dealing with the stress of mixed messages isn’t about forcing the other person to be clear; it's about being more intentional in how you handle what they are sharing with you. Just like the conductor is responsible for the congruence between their physical gestures and the message being sent, leaders can only control their own responses. The beginning of this self-regulation is always self-awareness. Ultimately, our job as leaders is to bring harmony out of chaos, and by becoming aware of the dissonance that comes from mixed messages, we can choose to respond with clarity and intention.
This reflection is part of an ongoing leadership series grounded in the IN TONE Leadership framework, which examines how misalignment often shows up first as anxiety.
Next week we will take a look at another type of cognitive dissonance called double binds and how we as leaders can overcome the unrest they often cause us.
See you at the next rehearsal!