It’s Not What You Say, It’s What They Hear: Michael Maslansky on Language, Trust, and Communicating in the Age of Rage

Headshot of Michael Maslansky, CEO of maslansky + partners and author of The Language of Trust

Michael Maslansky

CEO, New York City
If you work in communications right now, you know how challenging it can be. What you may not fully appreciate is why it keeps getting harder—and what you can actually do about it. Following are excerpts from a recent fireside chat for communicators in higher education where Michael talks about the state of public trust, the art and science of Language Strategy, and the surprisingly common mistakes that undermine even the most well-intentioned communicators.

Q: You’ve been writing and talking about the “post-trust era” for over a decade. What’s changed?

When I wrote The Language of Trust back in 2010, I thought the situation was bad. Looking back now, that era seems almost quaint. The trends that were in place then have only moved in the wrong direction. The most recent framing we’ve developed for this is something we call the “Age of Rage.” The public’s default position when engaging with institutions—whether it’s a company they do business with, a university, a government agency—has shifted from skepticism to something closer to active mistrust. People aren’t waiting to be disappointed. They’re already angry before you open your mouth.

That creates a fundamentally different challenge for communicators. You can’t assume good faith. You have to approach every message with the understanding that your audience is already skeptical—and build from there. The good news is that when you accept that reality, it actually becomes easier to avoid the biggest communication mistakes. You stop trying to win people over with claims that sound great to you, and you start thinking about what’s going to land with them.

Q: What is “Language Strategy,” and how does it help?

The simplest way to put it: every time you open your mouth—or start typing a message—every single word is a choice. Language Strategy is the art and science of making those choices wisely.

I know what some people are thinking: isn’t that manipulation? And my answer is yes, in the same way that every human being manipulates their environment with language in almost every context. The question is whether you’re doing it consciously and effectively or just defaulting to whatever feels natural to you. What we do at maslansky + partners—and what we advise our clients—is to start from the premise that we’re communicating what we believe to be true, and then figure out the most effective way to communicate that truth so that the right audience actually receives it.

The research we do every day is about exactly that: developing different ways of talking about a topic and testing them. Asking people what they actually hear. Because it’s not what you say that matters, it’s what your audience hears.

Q: You talk about four principles of Language Strategy. Can you walk us through them?

Sure. And I’ll frame them the way I think about them — each one is about making it easy. Easy to understand, easy to believe, easy to relate to, easy to like. Those four things drive how people receive and respond to any message.

Be plainspoken

This means making things easy to understand through the lens of your audience. We use acronyms and shortcuts that feel efficient to us but are invisible walls to the people we’re trying to reach. The art here is really stepping outside your own expertise and asking: would someone who doesn’t live in my world understand what I just said?

Be plausible

Make things easy to believe. One of my favorite survey questions we’ve asked over the years: if you’re choosing between two products and the only difference is that one says “new and improved” and the other says “works as directed”—which do you pick? About 80% of people consistently choose “works as directed.” Not because they don’t want things to improve, but because they don’t believe “new and improved” actually means anything anymore. Credibility has to be earned, not declared.

Be personal

Make it easy to relate to. Focus on what’s in it for your audience, not what you want to say about yourself. This sounds obvious, but in practice, most organizational communication starts from what the organization wants to say. The question that should drive every message is: why does this matter to the person I’m trying to reach?

Be positive

This doesn’t mean Pollyannaish. It means wrapping the negative in the context of the positive. In our experience—and we’ve worked in political communications where negative messaging is considered king—scare tactics and “what you can’t do” framing almost always underperform positive framing. Frame solutions, not threats.

Q: Can you give us some real-world examples of how changing the language actually changed the outcome?

Absolutely. Three come to mind right away.

Return-to-office post-COVID.

A lot of companies handled this by essentially saying, “You will come back to the office because we’re paying you.” That didn’t work. The companies that handled it well shifted from what the organization wanted to what the employee would gain—being around colleagues, being visible for career growth, having the kind of human connection that’s actually good for you. Same ask. Completely different frame. One builds resentment; the other builds buy-in.

ESG

When we went and talked to the public about ESG, a meaningful portion of people thought it stood for “eggs, sausage, and grits.” It was an acronym that was never defined, easy to demonize, and instantly polarizing. When we shifted the language to “responsible business”—a term nobody had been coached on—people immediately and instinctively described it as a company that cares about the environment, its employees, and its community. The concept didn’t change. The language did. The results were entirely different.

Climate change

That phrase has become so politically coded that people stop listening the moment they hear it, regardless of what comes next. When we shifted to talking about “extreme weather and its impact on local communities,” everything changed. It doesn’t matter to most people who caused it—they’re experiencing extreme weather. They can relate to that. And if the solution addresses extreme weather, it has a much better chance of gaining their support.

Q: What are the words and phrases leaders most consistently get wrong when the stakes are high?

The biggest one is pronouns. The difference between leaders who communicate effectively in a crisis versus those who don’t often comes down to whether they’re using “I” and “we” or “they.” When a leader keeps saying “I,” it signals self-focus. “We” creates a sense of shared experience and responsibility. A small shift, but an enormous impact.

The second thing—and this one is overlooked constantly—is acknowledgment. Before you ask anyone to accept change, accept difficult news, or accept a difficult message, you have to demonstrate that you understand where they are. “No one likes change.” “No one wants to see rising bills.” These aren’t just platitudes, they’re trust-builders. They signal to your audience that you see them. If you skip that step, the best message in the world is fighting an uphill battle.

And then there are terms that leaders love that actually work against them. “Transformation” is a great example. Inside organizations, it’s heard as: “What we have now isn’t good enough.” There’s an implied insult. “Efficiency” is another; it’s code for layoffs in most employees’ minds. If you need to use those concepts, define them. Don’t rely on the shortcut.

Q: One last question: what’s the single most important thing you’d want communicators to take away?

This: some messages make you feel good, and some messages work. They are usually not the same message.

As a communicator, your job is to be the advocate for the audience in the room—especially when you’re sitting across from an executive who is much more focused on what they want to say. Your value is in bringing the audience’s perspective to that conversation. Not wordsmithing. Not editing. Asking: “What does this person actually hear when we say this? And is that what we’re trying to say?”

When you make that your starting point, everything else gets easier.

Want to bring this kind of thinking to your organization? We would love to talk with you. Whether it’s a consultation, a message audit, or an eye-opening presentation for your team, we’re here to help you figure out not just what to say — but what your audience will actually hear. Contact us to get started.

Michael Maslansky is CEO of maslansky + partners and the author of The Language of Trust.

You Might Also Like