Introduction
Communication is probably one of the most underrated skills in the IT industry.
What’s interesting is that we spend huge amounts of time learning technologies, frameworks, patterns, architectures, and tools — but much less time learning how to communicate with each other effectively.
At the same time, most problems in software development are not purely technical.
They’re usually connected with:
• misunderstandings,
• assumptions,
• lack of context,
• emotions,
• expectations,
• or communication mismatches.
If you think about it for a moment, even the best architecture can slowly collapse if communication inside the team is unhealthy.
What’s even more important is that communication styles are deeply connected with personality, upbringing, culture, past experiences, stress levels, and emotional intelligence. This means that people may have good intentions while communicating in completely different ways.
And this is where many problems begin.
Different languages inside the same language
One of the most valuable things I’ve noticed during my professional journey is that people often think they communicate clearly while the other side receives a completely different message.
Let’s imagine a simple situation.
A software developer writes:
"“This solution may not be optimal.”"
Depending on the communication style of the receiver, this message can be interpreted as:
• neutral technical feedback,
• passive aggression,
• criticism,
• attack,
• invitation to discussion,
• or even disrespect.
Interesting, right?
We use the same language, the same words, sometimes even the same emojis — but because our internal worlds are different, communication becomes interpretation rather than pure information exchange.
This is why emotional intelligence becomes so important in teamwork.
If we understand that different people communicate differently, we stop assuming malicious intent too quickly.
Direct vs indirect communication
This is one of the most visible differences in IT teams.
Some people communicate in a very direct way:
"“This solution is wrong.”"
"“We should refactor this.”"
"“The deadline is unrealistic.”"
Others communicate more indirectly:
"“Maybe we could explore another approach?”"
"“I’m not sure if this is the best direction.”"
"“Perhaps we should revisit estimations.”"
Now let’s pause for a moment.
Which style is better?
Probably neither.
Each style has strengths and weaknesses.
Direct communication can:
• increase clarity,
• speed up decision-making,
• reduce ambiguity.
But at the same time, it can feel emotionally overwhelming for more sensitive people.
Indirect communication can:
• protect relationships,
• reduce tension,
• create psychological safety.
But it can also:
• create confusion,
• delay decisions,
• generate misunderstandings.
The problem usually appears when people unconsciously assume that their communication style is “normal” and other styles are “wrong.”
Context changes communication
Another interesting thing is that communication style is rarely constant.
A calm and patient person under stress may suddenly become cold, reactive, or emotionally distant.
Someone very talkative may become silent.
Someone collaborative may become defensive.
Why?
Because communication is not only about words.
It’s also about nervous system regulation.
This is something many companies still underestimate.
A burned-out team will communicate differently than a healthy one.
A stressed manager will communicate differently than a calm one.
A developer after three hours of sleep and ten production bugs will probably communicate differently than during relaxed sprint planning on Friday afternoon.
Understanding context allows us to become less judgmental and more observant.
Listening is harder than speaking
I think many people confuse hearing with listening.
Hearing is automatic.
Listening requires attention, emotional distance, patience, and curiosity.
Quite often during discussions we are not truly listening to understand another person. We are listening to prepare our response.
This creates invisible tension in communication.
People feel when they are truly heard.
And interestingly — many conflicts disappear naturally when someone feels understood.
Not because the problem vanished.
But because emotional pressure decreased enough to allow rational conversation.
In many engineering teams, active listening can dramatically improve:
• code reviews,
• retrospectives,
• sprint planning,
• stakeholder meetings,
• conflict resolution,
• mentoring,
• leadership.
Sometimes the best thing you can say during difficult conversation is:
"“I understand your perspective.”"
Not because you fully agree.
But because you acknowledge another human being.
Communication and ego
This may be uncomfortable, but I think ego influences communication much more than we would like to admit.
Especially in industries built around expertise and intelligence.
Sometimes discussions are not truly about:
• architecture,
• code quality,
• product decisions,
• or processes.
Sometimes they are about:
• validation,
• fear,
• insecurity,
• status,
• or control.
If someone identifies too strongly with their ideas, every disagreement may feel like personal rejection.
This is why emotional distance is so valuable.
Your idea is not you.
Your code is not you.
Your opinion is not you.
Once we separate our identity from output of our work, communication becomes calmer and much more constructive.
Final thoughts
Communication styles are much deeper than simple personality traits.
They are connected with:
• emotions,
• experiences,
• culture,
• stress,
• self-esteem,
• emotional intelligence,
• and perception.
The more people you meet, the more you realise that communication is less about speaking correctly and more about understanding accurately.
I think one of the most valuable soft skills in the IT industry is the ability to adapt communication style without losing authenticity.
Not every person needs the same approach.
Some people need directness.
Others need gentleness.
Some need structure.
Others need emotional safety first.
And perhaps maturity in communication is not about proving that we are right.
Maybe it’s about creating enough understanding so people can move toward the same goal together.
Soft Skills series
Part 3 of 32. Read more on the Empatalk blog or take the Communication DNA survey at empatalk.app/survey.
Sources and further reading
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
• Milton, D.E.M. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: the "double empathy problem". Disability & Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008
• Daft, R.L., & Lengel, R.H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554