Communication Psychology - with Gerhard Ohrband

In times of economic uncertainty, many companies reduce or suspend activities dedicated to the development of so-called "soft skills." Budgets are tightened, priorities are reassessed, and employee development is increasingly presented as a personal responsibility. At first glance, this seems reasonable. Employees are encouraged to read books, watch videos, listen to podcasts, attend seminars, and engage in continuous self-development. After all, personal growth is important. However, from the customer's perspective, this argument misses the point entirely. As a customer, I could not care less whether an impolite employee was given a list of recommended books, encouraged to attend trainings in their free time, or received access to an online learning platform. My concern is much simpler: your company hired this person, your company represents itself through this person, and your company is responsible for the experience I receive. When I leave a restaurant dissati...

The more fluid the labor market becomes and the shorter employees tend to stay within an organization, the more important it is to ensure that the skills, knowledge, and information generated by those employees remain within the company. A simple example: in a sales position, employees often change every two years. A new employee in such a role would greatly benefit if the company could transfer the condensed experience of previous sales representatives—tips, strategies, and even failures. However, there are still companies, especially those under strong performance pressure, that do not encourage employees to share information among themselves. The reasons can vary. In some cases, managers may fear a loss of status if information becomes widely accessible. Employees might exchange uncomfortable insights or discover unequal working conditions and begin demanding equal treatment or compensation. Managers may also worry that shared information could be used in ways that might harm ...

  Preparing for a public speech is difficult enough for most people. Yet public speaking is, in many ways, easier than ordinary conversation. A speech has structure. The roles are relatively clear. One person speaks, others listen. You can rehearse your wording, prepare your examples, and anticipate objections. Even if the audience reacts emotionally, the interaction is limited and predictable. Conversations are different. A conversation is alive. It changes direction unexpectedly. Someone may interrupt after only a few seconds. Another person may suddenly challenge you, misunderstand you, or react emotionally. And in that moment, memorized sentences often collapse. This is why effective communication in conversations is not primarily about memorizing what to say. It is about psychological clarity. Before an important conversation, we should not only ask ourselves “What do I want to say?” but also: ·         What objective information...

Most of the following mechanisms are relevant to almost any kind of behavioral change. First, working on communication seems complex and difficult. It is not as though we only need to improve one single thing. Communication is an umbrella term that includes many different skills and behaviors we can — and should — work on: the quality of our voice, body language, the quality of our questions, becoming more empathetic, explaining complicated ideas in a simple way, defending our positions clearly, and many others. As a result, we often feel overwhelmed and do not know where to begin. We feel incompetent in many different areas at once. Second, we fall prey to the so-called sunk cost effect . The sunk cost effect describes our tendency to continue investing in familiar behaviors simply because we have already invested years into them — even when they are ineffective. In communication, this means that people may unconsciously resist changing the way they speak, argue, explain, react ...

In the Republic of Moldova, a former Soviet republic where I am based, many companies increasingly adopt Western HR language and organizational branding. Companies present themselves as open cultures where employees can grow, contribute, and shape both the company and society. In job advertisements, we increasingly encounter phrases such as: “We invite you to become the voice of your community.” Or: “Create a working environment where people feel valued and motivated.” Or: “Contribute to the development of the initiative.” The message is clear: your opinion matters here. You are not merely an employee. You are a participant, contributor, and co-creator. On the surface, this development appears highly positive. Compared to traditional authoritarian organizational cultures, modern HR discourse emphasizes participation, collaboration, psychological safety, and employee engagement. But an uncomfortable question remains: How much of this employee voice culture is real...

In communication psychology and HR practice, one of the most underestimated steps before a difficult conversation is clarifying your own internal position toward the other person. This is not a “soft” or optional step. In many cases, it is what determines whether a conversation becomes constructive, confusing, or emotionally distorted. Mixed Perceptions Are the Norm, Not the Exception A common mistake in professional communication is the assumption that we need a single, unified judgment about another person before we can speak clearly to them. In reality, most workplace relationships are inherently mixed. Few people—outside of extreme cases such as highly polarizing public figures—trigger purely positive or purely negative reactions. More often, several perceptions coexist at the same time: Certain behaviors are appreciated, while others are experienced as frustrating or inefficient. Some traits are personally likable, while others create tension or resistance in a working...