Communication Pedagogy and Meanderings

The Stewardship of Fear: Trauma-Informed Leadership in an Age of Anxiety

By Jill Szoo Wilson

She is thoughtful, intelligent, good-humored, and consistently encouraging to her fellow students. She’s the kind of student who listens closely when others speak, offers quiet affirmation rather than competition, and seems genuinely glad when her classmates do well. She began the semester strong, delivering two solid speeches and attending every class. There was nothing tentative about her start.

Midway through the term, something changed. Her warmth toward others remained. Her generosity did not disappear. But her attendance became uneven. Absences began to grow to the extent that she missed one of her assigned speaking dates. From there, a pattern emerged that did not match her ability or her effort.

This student did not vanish or disengage as some do. Each missed class came with a morning email in which she apologized and asked what she could do to keep up with the rest of the class. Even as she struggled to be present in the room, she worked to remain connected to the course and accountable to its expectations.

On the final day of the semester, I pulled her aside before class began. This was her last opportunity to deliver the make-up speech she had missed earlier in the term. I asked a question I have asked many students before, a question meant to open a door rather than close one: “How are you doing? Are you ready to go today?” I could see the fear in her eyes drain into the rest of her body and turn into fight-or-flight level tension. Tears came first. Panic followed. We agreed that she could choose whether to deliver the speech privately, after the other students had gone, or not deliver it at all.

When the classroom emptied, we talked for a long time. In the end, she did not give the speech—she could not—and in that moment, I knew I needed to honor her choice. There are times when I will encourage a student to push through their fear. Knowing when not to is part of the work.

What unfolded in that empty room was a trauma response. Panic, dissociation, and fear overtook the student’s capacity to communicate as her nervous system shifted into a state of perceived threat. Her breathing became shallow and rapid. Her body held itself tight. Her words rushed forward, tumbling over one another as she tried to explain how desperately she wanted not to feel the way she did.

Anyone who works in a position of authority—teachers, pastors, physicians, supervisors—has seen this moment. Communication can become physically unavailable when fear takes over. The body tightens, language recedes, and access to speech narrows. When someone is in that state, it is important to remember that applying pressure to the one suffering amplifies distress. Performance returns only when the nervous system has time and space to settle.

There are moments when growth comes from learning that discomfort is not danger, and pushing through fear can be part of that work. There are other moments that call for a different response, as I will explain in the next section.

Fear, Authority, and the Return of Choice

Clinical psychologist David A. Carbonell has spent decades working with people whose lives are shaped by anxiety and panic. His work is especially instructive for those in positions of authority because it explains fear without shaming the person who experiences it and without requiring the leader to become a therapist.

Carbonell begins with a simple but destabilizing premise: anxiety is not a failure of reasoning. It is the activation of a survival system designed to move faster than thought. When fear arises, the brain’s alarm circuitry engages before the reflective systems responsible for language, planning, and explanation have time to come online. This system is meant to protect us, not to help us communicate well.

In moments of perceived threat, the nervous system does not pause to ask whether fear is reasonable or proportional. It acts. Muscles tighten. Breathing shifts into the chest. Attention focuses inward, and sometimes sight narrows. The body prepares for escape, defense, or collapse. Thought follows only if the body allows it.

This is why anxiety so often surprises both the person experiencing it and those witnessing it. A student who is prepared may suddenly freeze. A patient who understands their condition may struggle to answer basic questions. A congregant who wants to speak honestly may fall silent at precisely the moment language feels most necessary. These responses are not evidence of avoidance, deceit, or unwillingness; they’re evidence that the body has moved ahead of the mind.

Carbonell describes anxiety as a “counterintuitive problem” because the strategies people instinctively use to overcome fear often make it worse. Reasoning with fear, pushing through it, or trying to suppress it may appear sensible, but they frequently intensify the nervous system’s alarm. The body interprets urgency, control, or insistence as confirmation that danger is present. What sounds like encouragement to the leader can register as a threat to the person already struggling to regulate.

When I was struggling with heightened anxiety in 2013, I remember telling my longtime family doctor, who was familiar with my personality and profession, “Speaking exhausts me right now. I know what I want to say, but I just don’t feel like talking. It’s exhausting.”

This insight is critical for anyone in authority. When anxiety is driving the body, access to speech narrows as survival takes precedence. Communication returns as the conditions that support it are restored.

The AWARE Framework

Dr. Carbonell developed the AWARE framework while working with clients whose anxiety escalated quickly and overwhelmed their ability to stay present. Rather than asking people to conquer fear, the model offers a way to slow the moment down once fear has already arrived and to change how a person relates to that fear in real time. AWARE stands for Acknowledge, Wait, Allow, Repeat, and Engage. The sequence follows the nervous system’s own rhythm as it moves from alarm toward steadiness.

Acknowledge

Acknowledge begins by bringing attention to what is happening in the present moment. Fear often intensifies when it goes unnamed, especially when a person tries to reason their way out of it or push it away. My student described it this way: “The last time I did a speech, I kept thinking if I could run out of the classroom I would be okay, but then also telling myself I couldn’t run out of the classroom. The more I told myself to stay, the more panicked I felt.”

Acknowledgment interrupts that spiral. When fear is named as it appears, the body no longer has to work as hard to contain it. Attention shifts from escape to awareness, and the nervous system begins to loosen its grip.

In practice, acknowledging fear means noticing and naming what is present in real time: a tight chest, shallow breathing, racing thoughts, a sense of urgency. This naming does not analyze or correct the experience. It simply brings it into awareness. That attention eases the body’s demand for immediate action and signals that the moment can be tolerated rather than escaped.

Instead of asking, “How do I get out of this?” the question becomes, “Is this danger or discomfort?” When the answer is discomfort, fear can be acknowledged without being obeyed.

Acknowledgment slows the interaction and opens space for choice.

Wait

Wait introduces time into a moment that feels compressed. Fear collapses experience into urgency. Everything begins to feel as though it must happen immediately.

For my student, waiting would not have meant deciding what to do next. It would have meant staying with the sensations for a few seconds longer without acting on them. Feeling her feet on the floor. Allowing her breath to move as it could. Letting the urge to escape crest and fall rather than rushing toward resolution.

Even brief pauses give the nervous system crucial information. As seconds pass without action, the body begins to register that immediate escape is not required. Breathing steadies. Muscles soften. Attention widens enough for choice to return.

For leaders, waiting can feel counterintuitive. We are trained to move toward solutions, explanations, or outcomes. Carbonell’s work asks us to trust time itself as a regulating force. Waiting allows the body to recalibrate so that whatever comes next emerges from awareness rather than urgency.

Allow

Once fear has been acknowledged and time has been introduced, the next impulse is often to make the fear stop. This is where anxiety tends to escalate. The body senses resistance and responds by pushing harder.

In the student’s experience, this showed up as an internal struggle. She tried to calm herself, reason with herself, and override the urge to escape. Each attempt intensified her panic. Her body interpreted the struggle itself as evidence that something was wrong.

Allow changes that relationship. Instead of working against fear, the student lets the sensations exist without trying to fix them. The chest remains tight. The breath stays shallow. The urgency lingers. But the fight stops.

Allowing fear does not mean agreeing with it or surrendering to it. It means recognizing that the alarm has already sounded and does not need correction in order to settle. When resistance drops, intensity often follows. The body begins to regulate not because it was forced, but because it is no longer being fought.

Repeat

Fear rarely resolves in a single wave. It rises, softens, and often returns. When it does, the impulse is to interpret its return as failure.

Repeat offers a different response. When fear resurfaces, the student returns to the same steps without escalation. She acknowledges what she notices. She allows the sensations to exist. She waits again. Nothing new needs to be solved.

This repetition teaches the nervous system something essential: fear can come and go without requiring action. Each cycle weakens the urgency attached to the sensations. Over time, fear loses authority not because it disappears, but because it no longer controls the response.

Repeat builds tolerance, not toughness. Consistency, not control, carries the system toward regulation.

Engage

Engage comes after fear has been acknowledged, time has been allowed, and resistance has eased. The student does not wait for fear to disappear. She reenters the task while carrying the remaining sensations with her.

In the classroom, this means shifting attention outward. The student stands at the front of the room with a breath that is still shallow but workable. She looks up. She finds one face in the room. She begins with the first sentence she prepared.

Engagement does not require full calm. It requires orientation. Attention moves away from internal monitoring and toward the shared task of communication.

As the student speaks, fear may continue to rise and fall in the background. She does not evaluate it. She stays with the work in front of her. Each sentence spoken gives the nervous system new information: the body can remain visible, engaged, and unharmed.

Engage restores agency. Communication resumes not because fear vanished, but because attention found a place to rest outside the self.

What This Means for Leaders

Over the years, I have noticed that more students are arriving in my classrooms with nervous systems already shaped by repeated alarms. I see it in attendance patterns, in the way bodies brace before a speech, and in how quickly attention collapses inward once fear takes hold. This is not unique to my classroom. It is widespread and growing.

Recent data make that clear. A large national survey by the University of Michigan School of Public Health found that one in three college students reported moderate to severe anxiety symptoms, with more than a third meeting criteria for a diagnosable anxiety disorder (University of Michigan School of Public Health, 2023). The National Education Association reports similar findings, noting that anxiety now surpasses depression as the most frequently cited mental health struggle on many campuses (National Education Association, 2023). A global review in BMC Psychiatry echoes this pattern, showing that roughly one-third of college students worldwide experience elevated anxiety levels, with anxiety disorders among the most common conditions in this age group (Nguyen et al., 2023).

These are not abstract statistics. They describe the lived reality of the bodies and minds leaders stand before every day in classrooms, churches, clinics, and offices. Anxiety is shaped not only by individual history, but by cultural and academic pressures that accumulate long before people enter our spaces. For many, heightened vigilance is already the baseline.

That reality has direct consequences for communication. Bodies braced for threat do not speak as freely as bodies oriented toward engagement. When the nervous system detects danger, real or perceived, it redirects energy toward survival. Leaders trained to maintain momentum or secure outcomes may misread hesitation as resistance, silence as avoidance, or uneven performance as lack of preparation. Yet insistence on immediacy or efficiency can quietly confirm the very threat the nervous system is trying to manage.

Trauma-informed leadership begins with recognizing this dynamic. It does not require diagnosis, nor does it ask leaders to become therapists. Instead, it calls us to:

notice how fear shows up in the moment,
slow the interaction enough for regulation to begin, and
orient expectations around the body’s capacity before asking it to communicate under pressure.

This does not weaken standards. It strengthens people.
Honoring a student’s nervous system in a moment of acute distress does not eliminate accountability or academic standards; it ensures that evaluation reflects capacity rather than collapse.

A trauma-informed posture creates the conditions under which students and colleagues can perform to their actual ability. It allows them to remain present long enough for thinking, skill, and preparation to take shape. The goal is not to remove challenge, but to ensure that challenge does not exceed the body’s ability to participate.

When leaders understand fear as a physiological response rather than a personal failing, they interpret hesitation as information. They allow choice to reenter the moment. And they learn to meet fear not with urgency, but with timing, which is often the difference between collapse and communication.

In an era when anxiety is this pervasive, trauma-informed leadership is not an added skill. It is a necessary form of stewardship.

Afterword

This is a complicated topic to write about because so much of what we do in a classroom grows out of instinct and the kind of discernment that only time creates. It is hard to explain to a new teacher, or to a young professional in any field, when to hold a firm pedagogical line and when to let it soften in order to meet the human being in front of you. Students need different things in different moments, and those needs are often invisible until they surface in panic, silence, or retreat.

I was out of the college classroom for two years. When I returned this past semester, I noticed a marked shift in the students. I am not someone who says, “This generation is lazy” or “The kids are changing” as a complaint about the future. The students are changing, but they are responding to changes that began long before they entered our classrooms. They face a cultural landscape shaped by social media, constant comparison, economic pressure, and a world that asks them to “perform” in nearly every public and private space. Their nervous systems reflect the world that formed them.

I taught a student in 2013 who blacked out while giving a speech. He remained standing at the podium, but his words stopped. Just before he went silent, he began to stammer, and I watched fear move through him until it overtook the moment.

After class, we sat together and debriefed. I asked him what had gone through his mind just before the fear took hold. He said, “I pictured my mom in the audience. And she was telling me I would not amount to anything.”

In that moment, it was clear that no amount of pedagogy would help him. He did not need stricter deadlines or more detailed feedback. He needed encouragement. He needed someone to meet him in the present moment and remind him that the story he carried was not the story he had to live. I decided to let him give the speech again during the next class period so he could replace that frightening experience with a new one.

What happened next shaped the way I think about teaching. After he finished the second speech, the entire class stood and applauded. They were not applauding brilliance. They were applauding something much more important: courage. They had seen a peer face something that had once undone him, and they honored the strength it took to return.

That semester taught me to build classroom cultures rather than classrooms organized around performance. It taught me that skills grow best in environments where students trust that their humanity is seen and that their fear will not be used against them. I have never regretted that decision.

What My Students Taught Me This Semester

Christmas treats handed out. Goodbye hugs and handshakes extended. Grades turned in. Another semester in the books.

Moments like this remind me of what it used to feel like to drop a coin into a noisy fountain. Whatever wish I made filled my mind and hand with anticipation, with the kind of energy that moves you forward. Then came the thrust of the arm, the release, the drop, the looking through rippling water. It felt quiet. Like you had accomplished something, but wouldn’t quite know what until much later.

Where do our wishes go? Where will these students go?

Does that make sense?

This was probably my favorite semester in all my decades of teaching in higher education.

Intersections. Semesters are always intersections between me and the students, the students and one another, and the students and themselves. Who they were, who they are, and who they are becoming. But this semester felt electric, alive with points on a map charting lefts and rights, ups and downs, and ins and outs. For better and for worse.

I had students who became homeless and held on. Students who were beginning afresh and letting go. Students who started with little hope and left with direction, and others who learned quietly that school just isn’t for them. There were fights for freedom. Heated arguments about the meaning of courage, good, and knowledge. I bore witness to confusion and courage and strength and joy. Tides in an ocean of relative chaos, and ships that refused to sink.

I am so proud of my students. Every single one of them. And I am humbled by the role I have in their lives to listen, question, encourage, and challenge.

In the final summation, what I realize is that I needed them more this semester than they needed me. Or maybe it was equal. They kept me focused outside of myself, and when I wanted to despair, they met me with laughter, frivolity, complexity, and routine.

This is life. Our classrooms are microcosms of the wider world, and when we can love, negotiate disagreement, have difficult conversations, and still extend hugs and handshakes at the end, we have taken part in some of the most rewarding work this life offers.

I’ll leave you with some of the results from one of our more contentious Socratic question roundtables this semester, What Is Courage:

“Courage is the willingness to make a full, genuine attempt at overcoming an obstacle that presents a physical and/or mental danger.” —B

“The full attempt to overcome a physical and/or mental obstacle with perceived risk.” —A

“An action. Choosing to face an obstacle that presents risk in spite of those risks.” —P

“An act or mentality that allows or enables someone to overcome an obstacle despite the chance of danger or other unfavorable outcomes.” —D

“The mental and moral strength to act despite fear and danger.” —T

“Courage is doing something even when you feel afraid.” —C

“Courage is the act doing something even when you feel fear/danger/risk/ obstacle, whether is physically or mentally challenging even when it costs you something, and even when no one is watching.” —S

“Courage is bearing up under the weight of outward and/or inward threat for the purpose of becoming who you need to be for yourself and others. All for the glory of God.” —J

“I’m not sure, but I know it’s something we do for the greater good or else it’s just self-confidence.” —L

What do you say courage is?

Fear is Inevitable. Courage is a Choice.

By Jill Szoo Wilson

“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.” — Hannah Arendt

In the summer of 1942, Reserve Police Battalion 101 assembled outside the village of Józefów in Nazi-occupied Poland. The men who stood in formation were not professional soldiers. Only months earlier, they had been running hardware shops, repairing trucks, keeping business accounts, and returning home to their families each evening. They were fathers and neighbors, men in their thirties and forties who had aged out of frontline service before the war began. Their conscription into a reserve police unit had interrupted ordinary routines, not fulfilled ambitions for combat.

Major Wilhelm Trapp, their commander, stepped before them. Witnesses later described him as unsettled, his face unusually pale. He spoke without military rhetoric or ideological preface. The battalion, he said, would enter Józefów and collect its Jewish residents. They were to remove people from their homes: women, children, the elderly, and the sick. The residents would then be taken to the nearby forest, where the battalion would carry out “necessary measures.”

Only after giving these instructions did Trapp add a final detail that stands out in the historical record. Any man who felt unable to participate could step out of formation without punishment.

The battalion remained still. No one protested or sought clarification. After a moment, a few men stepped out of line, then a few more. In all, out of nearly five hundred, only twelve removed themselves from the formation.

The rest marched toward Józefów.

How should we account for the decision of so many men drawn from familiar routines to stay in formation without protest?

Scholars have focused on this moment because it disrupts familiar explanations for how violence begins. Reserve Police Battalion 101 was not composed of ideologues or trained executioners, but of ordinary men whose lives had previously consisted of work, family, and routine. Their choice to remain in formation cannot be explained primarily by coercion or conviction. Most stood still not because they wanted to exact harm, but because they did not want to stand apart, be seen refusing, or face the uncertainty of acting alone. Therefore, the residents of Józefów were not killed by men set apart as specialists in violence, but by neighbors who failed to refuse when refusal was still possible. In this context, participation arose less from intent than from hesitation. The killing did not require their belief, only their compliance.

What happened in Józefów suggests that violence can advance not only through conviction, but through the avoidance of refusal and the desire to remain safely within the group. Harm is sustained when no one interrupts it.

What happened outside Józefów reveals a pattern that extends far beyond wartime and history. Once obedience becomes the easiest way forward, responsibility begins to feel negotiable, something that can be handed off to whoever stands above us or beside us. People rarely wake up intending to harm others; they drift into it when the cost of refusal feels heavier than the cost of compliance.

Decades after the war, a psychologist named Stanley Milgram invited ordinary adults into a small laboratory at Yale University. He told them they were there to help with a study on memory. A mild-mannered man in a gray lab coat instructed them to administer electric shocks to a stranger in the next room if the stranger answered questions incorrectly. The shocks were fake, but the participants did not know that. Immediately following their press of the button, they heard screams, protests, and pounding on the wall. Many feared they were seriously hurting someone. A few protested, a few tried to stop, several shook or wept, but most continued when the man in the lab coat reassured them that the responsibility was his own. Their distress did not prevent their obedience. Being told they were “not the ones in charge” became a relief.

A few years later, another researcher, Philip Zimbardo, converted the basement of Stanford’s psychology building into a mock prison. Volunteers were assigned roles: some became “guards,” others “prisoners.” The assignment came with no training, no ideology, and no instruction to be harsh. The guards were merely told to maintain order.

At first, the volunteers treated their roles loosely. Some joked, others followed the script half-heartedly, unsure how seriously to take the experiment. They carried traces of their everyday lives with them: the habits of students, sons, and roommates. But as the hours passed, their uniforms changed the way they moved. The mirrored sunglasses hid their eyes, and the separation between “guards” and “prisoners” encouraged them to speak with authority. They began to issue commands more sharply. They enforced rules more strictly. What started as playing a role shifted into performance with stakes, and each act of control made the next one easier.

The shift did not arise from hatred or conviction. It unfolded as the guards realized what the role allowed—and chose to use it. No one corrected their tone. No one questioned the rules they invented. Each act of control felt like permission for the next. Within days, they relied on humiliation and psychological pressure, not because they had entered the experiment with cruelty in mind, but because they discovered they could act this way and decided to keep doing it. The situation offered authority without limits, and they stepped into that freedom. Their choices, small at first, accumulated into harm.

Around the same time, a quieter experiment unfolded in a hospital ward. A researcher named Charles Hofling phoned nurses during their shifts, pretending to be a physician giving a prescription. The dosage he ordered violated hospital policy and put the patient at clear risk. The nurses knew this. They hesitated. Yet almost all of them prepared to administer the medication. They were not driven by disregard for the patient or by carelessness. It was the voice on the other end of the phone—authoritative, insistent, claiming responsibility—that tipped the scale. To obey felt safer than to refuse.

The people in these experiments were not sadists or zealots. They were parents, students, nurses, and everyday workers who did not want to cause harm but wanted even less to bear the discomfort of resisting it. They felt anxiety, confusion, even moral distress, yet continued anyway. They were relieved when to believe that the responsibility in their given scenarios did not belong to them. In a forest outside Józefów, this same pattern played out on a scale that cost innocent people their lives.

Cowardice is not the same as fear. Every person feels fear, and it arrives with its own shape, rising from uncertainty, from unanswered questions, from the risks that come with being alive. Fear can warn, protect, or humble us. Cowardice begins only when fear chooses its strategy. It places the cost of one’s actions onto someone else. Instead of carrying the weight of responsibility, it hands that weight to another person and walks away. Cowardice keeps its own reputation polished while letting others absorb its impact. It asks to be understood and excuses itself from being accountable. It allows the consequences of one’s choices to settle on those who cannot escape them.

We often imagine evil as something committed by those who crave it, yet most of the harm in history has been carried out by people who felt uneasy, reluctant, even afraid. The men in Józefów did not wake with murderous desire. They stayed in formation and let someone else decide what their fear would cost. The question Józefów leaves us with is not who among us would choose violence, but who among us would choose the discomfort of refusing it.

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil.” — Dietrich Bonhoeffer

This piece was originally posted on my Jill Szoo Wilson Substack.

The Courage to Be Seen Thinking: Speaking Through Fear

By Jill Szoo Wilson

“You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face.”— Eleanor Roosevelt

I teach communication courses. Public Speaking is my mainstay. I also teach theatre, but communication has taken the front seat in my heart because I can see—clearly, daily—that the younger generation longs to become confident and competent in their ability to connect with other people. It isn’t a weakness in them, as many older adults like to say. It’s a weakness in us if we don’t equip them now to adapt their unique voices to their audiences.

My generation shared this desire when I was in school, but the landscape has changed since then. We lacked information; this generation is drowning in it. Growing up, our question was “What should I say?” Theirs is closer to “Who will hear me?” They are not unsure of what to speak about as much as they are unsure whether anyone is listening in a world where voices collide, compete, and vanish into the noise.

Yesterday, as this semester wraps up, I asked my class, “Has public speaking gotten easier for you?” I fully expected the usual yes. For a couple of decades, I’ve almost always heard that answer. But this time, about 80 percent said yes, and the other 20 percent said they are more terrified than ever.

I stopped everything and asked them why.

When a student feels afraid, I take it seriously. I feel a brief window of responsibility to help them leave stronger than they arrived, so they do not carry unnecessary fear into the rest of their lives.

One student said, “I felt fine on my first speech. But then I had to miss one, and on the next speech, I felt like I was behind. My chest tightened. I felt like I needed to escape—run out the door—but I knew I couldn’t. So I felt trapped. Feeling trapped, my fear grew and soon it was like I couldn’t see anymore. It’s like my mind escaped the room, but my body had to stay here.”

What a remarkable way to describe panic:
“It’s like my mind escaped the room, but my body had to stay here.”

I won’t unpack the whole conversation we had afterward, but I share this because it highlights how essential it is to equip young people with the communication tools necessary not just to present information, but to remain present within themselves when they feel afraid. Even though these students know each other well by now, even though there’s camaraderie and safety (even in disagreement), they still confessed thoughts like:

Do I sound stupid?
Are they judging me?
What if I fail?
What if I’m not good enough?
Why didn’t I rehearse more? Now it’s too late. I’m going to crash out.
I want to disappear.

So I told them that if they remember anything from this entire semester, please let it be this:

There are always a hundred things happening at once in any moment. That’s life. It’s okay. You can’t control that part.
What you can control is your preparation and your focus—look outward to the audience you’re giving something to, not inward toward fear.
Adapt your message to your audience (using recency, locality, psychology, physiology, and economic factors), and speak from the heart as though you’re giving, not taking.

Fear lasts because communication touches identity. No teacher can remove that for another person; we can only help them learn how to stand in it.

Speaking always involves two kinds of work: thinking and being seen. When a student puts their ideas into words, they’re not only organizing their thoughts; they’re placing those thoughts into a space where others can evaluate them. That movement from inner reasoning to public expression activates the body just as powerfully as the mind. The student feels exposed because, in a very real sense, they are. Communication invites others to witness our thinking, and the body responds as though it must protect what has just been revealed. In this light, courage is not the absence of fear in communication, but the willingness to let one’s thinking be visible while learning to stay present in that exposure.

[C]ourage is not the absence of fear in communication, but the willingness to let one’s thinking be visible while learning to stay present in that exposure.

Neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux demonstrated that the brain processes emotional threat more rapidly than conscious reasoning, producing instinctive reactions before the mind has time to interpret them (The Emotional Brain, 1996). When speaking, that instinct narrows attention and draws awareness inward. The student’s focus moves away from the audience and toward the self: What are they thinking of me saying this? In that moment, communication shifts from sharing ideas to guarding the identity that feels exposed. The body prepares to protect the thinker, even while the thinker is trying to speak.

To teach how to communicate through fear, then, is not simply to teach speaking. It’s to teach attention. Communication is an outward-facing act in which meaning is co-created between speaker and audience. The student is not performing for a passive group but participating in a shared moment of understanding. When fear sends the mind fleeing—“escaping the room while the body stays behind”—the pedagogical work is to help students return to that shared moment. This does not mean suppressing their anxiety, but retraining where they place their awareness. Instead of monitoring their own performance, they learn to notice the listeners they are addressing: how the audience responds, where clarity is needed, and where curiosity sparks. They begin to read the cues that help them stay present, such as facial expressions, body posture or stillness, eye contact, moments of confusion, or quiet signs of interest like leaning forward, nodding, or attentive silence. Attention becomes the bridge that allows the speaker to stay present long enough for communication to take shape.

You may wonder, Isn’t it scarier to notice the people in front of you? I would respond with another question: Isn’t it far more frightening to stand in front of others while constantly critiquing yourself in your own mind? When students shift their attention outward, they no longer face the audience alone. They begin to share the work of understanding with the people who are listening.

Educational theorist Parker Palmer writes that “we fear the live encounter” when speaking because we are culturally conditioned to treat knowledge as a possession to defend rather than a shared activity (The Courage to Teach, 1998). Many students come to communication believing that they must display what they know and protect it from critique. In that mindset, speaking becomes an act of performance: their ideas become something like personal property on a stage, vulnerable to judgment. Fear grows because the task feels like self-presentation rather than shared exploration. The speaker begins working to preserve an image—trying not to be wrong, trying not to be misunderstood—rather than working to illuminate a topic with others. Under this frame, communication is effort spent guarding the self rather than engaging with the subject or the audience.

Instead of treating knowledge as something we defend, we can help students see it as something we share.

A helpful metaphor I offer my students is to treat ideas like campfires. When students speak, they are tending a thought long enough for others to gather around it. The speaker’s work is to make that flame visible and to offer enough clarity for others to see by its light. The heat belongs to the concept, not to the student’s identity. Fear grows when a student imagines they themselves are being scrutinized or judged, as though they must withstand the fire. But when they learn to host others at the fire of an idea, the pressure shifts. They do not perform; they invite. Their task becomes to let the thought burn clearly enough for others to explore what its light reveals.

Hosting others at the fire of an idea becomes an act of generosity. Instead of guarding an idea to protect themselves, students learn to offer it for the sake of shared understanding. In this posture, ideas become contributions rather than possessions to defend. The goal moves toward clarity, shared reasoning, and insight that others can carry beyond the moment of speaking. The speaker intends to give something away: a perspective, a question, or an interpretation that helps others think more carefully.

This change in intention helps reshape the student’s internal experience. The audience is no longer a threat to self-image, but a group of learners who can benefit from the speaker’s effort. Fear loosens not because it vanishes, but because it now serves a different purpose. Anxiety becomes a form of care: a signal that the message matters. Instead of trying to perform without fault, the speaker begins to engage in the work of making ideas accessible to others by choosing clearer examples, inviting shared reasoning, and adjusting pace and language. The focus shifts from How do I look? to What might help them see this?

Such reframing is supported by Kenneth Burke’s foundational view of rhetoric as “the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols” (A Rhetoric of Motives, 1950). Burke’s definition shifts attention away from persuasion as winning agreement and toward communication as building shared understanding. He calls humans “beings that respond to symbols” because we think, interpret, and act through language. Words, therefore, do more than convey information. They invite people into a coordinated way of seeing. In this light, communication becomes cooperative work. As students begin to see their speeches as something they give rather than something by which they are measured, their attention turns toward building that shared understanding. Fear becomes manageable because their purpose becomes relational, and their speech becomes purposeful because it serves a common effort.

Anxiety, then, becomes not an obstacle but a cue that communication matters. It invites awareness rather than avoidance. As Susan Cain observes, “Fear is not a flaw; it’s a sign that something is worth doing” (Quiet, 2012). In a pedagogical context, this insight reveals fear as evidence of engagement, a marker that students are entering meaningful communicative work.

When communication is taught as outward-facing rather than defensive, students learn more than technique. They develop ethical habits of attentiveness, which are central to higher education and essential to public life. In an era marked by rapid exchange, polarized discourse, and performative speech, the capacity to direct attention outward becomes an act of civic responsibility. It equips students not merely to express themselves, but to interpret contexts, consider audiences, and contribute to understanding within complex communities.

Higher education, viewed through this lens, is not simply preparing speakers. It is cultivating citizens capable of relational inquiry. To help students remain present while speaking, to keep their “mind in the room” when fear urges retreat, is to equip them for the intellectual and ethical demands of adult life. They learn to see communication not as self-display but as participation in the shared labor of meaning-making.

This reframing transforms fear from a barrier into a catalyst. Students do not conquer visibility; they inhabit it. They learn to speak with others rather than at them and to stay present in the encounter rather than disappear into self-consciousness. In doing so, they acquire a communicative stance that extends well beyond the classroom, a stance defined not by performance but by presence.

When a student says, “It feels like my mind escaped the room,” communication education becomes a way of helping them return. We can teach them to stay present with others and to participate in meaning-making even when visibility feels risky. The work of public speaking becomes ongoing preparation for shared life: learning to offer ideas with clarity, to attend to others with care, and to keep the mind in the room where understanding can grow. This practice shapes how we show up in the world, cultivating attentiveness, generosity, and a readiness to learn in community with others.

Jill Szoo Wilson is an educator, speaker, and writer who teaches communication and theatre at the college level. Her writing explores the ethical and relational possibilities of speech in public life.

Thinking in Community: Constructivism and the Socratic Tradition in Higher Education

By Jill Szoo Wilson

In contemporary higher education, a surprising harmony emerges between two pedagogical lineages often perceived as distinct: constructivist teaching philosophy and the Socratic Method. One grounds itself in cognitive development and social learning theory; the other traces its heritage to ancient Greece. Yet together, they form one of the most intellectually generative combinations available to the modern classroom. Both treat learning not as passive absorption but as active inquiry. Both assume that students arrive with prior knowledge, internal frameworks, and tacit assumptions that shape how they understand new information. Most importantly, both contend that education is not simply the transfer of content, but the transformation of the learner.

Constructivist thinkers argue that students build knowledge rather than receive it. Jean Piaget, the Swiss developmental psychologist, described this process as a dynamic interplay between assimilation and accommodation, a continual restructuring of cognitive architecture as learners encounter new experiences (The Origins of Intelligence in Children). Lev Vygotsky, the Russian social psychologist, extended this idea by emphasizing the social dimensions of learning. His concept of the Zone of Proximal Development proposed that understanding flourishes when learners engage in dialogue with a more capable peer or mentor. John Dewey, the American philosopher of education, echoed this view, asserting that “knowledge is not something which exists apart from experience” (Democracy and Education). Their scholarship provides the intellectual foundation for constructivist pedagogy: students learn by doing, by reflecting, and by negotiating meaning in community.

The Socratic Method shares this commitment to meaning-making through dialogue. Though separated by millennia from contemporary cognitive theory, Socrates, the Athenian philosopher, had already intuited that learning requires active mental engagement. His method—probing questions, conceptual clarification, and disciplined reasoning—invites students to articulate, examine, and ultimately revise their assumptions. Mortimer Adler, the American educational philosopher, writes in The Paideia Proposal that the Socratic classroom is defined by its refusal to reduce ideas to mere facts. Instead, it seeks to refine the mind through inquiry. Similarly, Nel Noddings, the influential scholar of ethics and education, observed that Socratic questioning “challenges students to consider why they believe what they believe” and requires an educator to listen closely, ask precisely, and build questions that reveal the architecture of a student’s thinking (Educating Moral People).

Although constructivism and the Socratic Method arise from different intellectual traditions, their meeting point is the conviction that learning is constructed, not delivered. When paired, they generate a classroom that is both rigorous and learner-centered.

Constructivism in Practice: Learning as a Process of Meaning-Making

Constructivist pedagogy begins with a simple premise: students bring a world with them. Prior experiences, cultural narratives, internalized scripts, emotional histories, and unspoken values become part of the classroom’s cognitive landscape. Jerome Bruner, a central figure in cognitive constructivism, argued that learning occurs when students “go beyond the information given” (The Process of Education). He believed that education should not simply prepare students for future life; it should cultivate their ability to interpret and re-interpret their world.

This orientation toward interpretation requires instructors to move from transmission to facilitation. In a transmission model, the teacher is positioned as the primary source of knowledge who delivers information for students to receive, record, and reproduce. In a facilitative model, the teacher instead designs learning experiences, poses questions, and structures interactions through which students actively construct understanding for themselves. Jerome Bruner, the American cognitive psychologist, argued that learning occurs most powerfully when students are guided to “go beyond the information given,” a process that requires thoughtful scaffolding and inquiry-based engagement (The Process of Education). Stephen Brookfield, a leading scholar in adult learning, similarly contends that facilitation encourages learners to examine their assumptions, engage in reflection, and build insight through structured dialogue (Teaching for Critical Thinking).

These theorists converge on one central claim: meaning is co-constructed. Students learn not only from lectures and readings, but from the interplay of questions, reflections, and interpretive tensions that arise during discussion.

In the college classroom, this creates a pedagogical environment that values nuance over finality. Students learn to test ideas, articulate interpretations, and reconsider or solidify earlier conclusions. The instructor becomes an architect of inquiry, designing learning experiences to provoke reflection rather than prescribing answers. Constructivism thus offers the philosophical soil in which Socratic teaching can take root.

Socratic Questioning: Inquiry as Intellectual Discipline

If constructivism provides the philosophical ground, the Socratic Method supplies the structure. Socratic pedagogy is not spontaneous conversation; it is purposeful inquiry. Christopher Phillips, founder of the modern Socrates Café movement, describes Socratic questioning as “a shared search for understanding” where each question functions as both challenge and invitation (Socrates Café). Allan Bloom characterizes this process as the cultivation of the “examined life,” where intellectual discomfort is not an obstacle but an essential component of learning (The Closing of the American Mind).

At its core, the Socratic Method rests on three types of inquiry:

Clarification questions, which refine imprecise statements.
Assumption questions, which uncover the beliefs beneath a claim.
Implication questions, which reveal the consequences of those beliefs.

Together, they encourage students to build a more precise conceptual vocabulary. This practice strengthens not only critical thinking but also metacognition, the process by which learners examine their own thinking and monitor how understanding develops. By articulating how they know what they know, students begin to understand the architecture of their own reasoning.

Stephen Brookfield notes that Socratic inquiry helps students identify “assumptions that are taken for granted and rarely examined” (Teaching for Critical Thinking). These moments of self-interrogation are often destabilizing, yet profoundly generative. The student shifts from absorbing knowledge to inhabiting it.

Within the college classroom, the Socratic Method functions as both compass and catalyst. It directs students toward deeper understanding and accelerates the cognitive processes described by constructivist theorists. It requires students to participate actively in their own intellectual development.

Where the Traditions Converge: Dialogue as Pedagogical Architecture

Constructivism and the Socratic Method converge in their shared conviction that learning emerges through intentional interaction. Both approaches resist the notion that knowledge is acquired through answers alone; instead, they emphasize the intellectual labor of forming, testing, and refining those answers. Dialogue becomes the medium through which understanding is shaped, not merely communicated.

In a constructivist–Socratic classroom, dialogue serves as an architectural framework that supports and directs cognitive growth. Questions are not interruptions to learning but the mechanisms that move it forward. They guide students from initial uncertainty toward increasingly complex interpretations, prompting them to articulate assumptions, revisit earlier conclusions, and trace the logic of their own thinking. It is in this movement that Vygotsky’s insight becomes visible: learning accelerates in the space between what a student can already do and what becomes possible through carefully guided interaction. The Zone of Proximal Development is not a chart or a formula in this setting. It is the lived moment when a question arrives at just the right level of difficulty, when a peer’s interpretation stretches a student’s own, when the instructor’s prompt nudges thought into a new configuration. As students respond to questions situated just beyond their current mastery, they test hypotheses, negotiate meaning with peers, and begin to inhabit the intellectual habits of inquiry.

Such a classroom is relational, reflective, and rigorously engaged. It honors the individuality of student experience while drawing learners into a shared pursuit of understanding. Within this environment, the instructor becomes a designer of intellectual movement and a structurer of dialogue so that students can recognize themselves as co-authors of their learning. The result is not merely the acquisition of knowledge but the cultivation of an interpretive stance that endures far beyond the course’s boundaries.

Conclusion

As these traditions come together in practice, the college classroom becomes a setting where inquiry deepens and understanding gains structure. Their shared commitment to reflection and the active construction of meaning encourages students to interpret ideas with increasing precision and to recognize the habits of thought that guide interpretation itself. Through this integrated approach, dialogue emerges as a sustained intellectual practice, inviting students into the slow, disciplined work of questioning, analyzing, and revising their thinking.

This work reaches far beyond the mastery of course content. The interpretive habits cultivated in a constructivist and Socratic classroom form the foundation for adult intellectual life. They strengthen the ability to discern patterns, evaluate competing claims, and approach complexity with patience rather than haste. In a culture shaped by constant information and rapid exchange, these habits create a practice of attentiveness. They help students recognize nuance, situate themselves within ongoing conversations, and contribute thoughtfully to the civic, professional, and relational worlds they will inhabit.

Viewed in this light, the purpose of higher education expands beyond the acquisition of knowledge. It becomes an invitation to develop a way of thinking characterized by curiosity, rigor, and a readiness to dwell in questions. When instructors adopt a pedagogy that affirms the social construction of understanding and the disciplined inquiry associated with the Socratic tradition, they help students cultivate a lifelong interpretive stance. This stance, more than any discrete skill or body of information, equips learners to encounter a complex world with insight, discernment, and intellectual courage

Rethinking Career Paths: Why Talent Clusters Matter More Than Majors

By Jill Szoo Wilson

Connecting Creative and Analytical Skills

“My dad has a totally different expectation for how my life should go,” one student reflected recently. “It sounds easy. He tells me to do one thing, and that that thing will lead to the next thing and the next and the next. But it’s not working that way.”

When asked to explain, he hesitated, then continued. “He told me to go to college, so I did. Two years in, I realized there weren’t enough jobs in my major, so I came back to community college to find a different path. I’m working two jobs and still live at home because I can’t afford to move out. When he tells me about his life, it all sounds easy. He went to college, got a job, bought a house, and got married. It sounds so easy.”

His words captured a generational tension I see often. Namely, the struggle to build a meaningful life in a world that no longer rewards linear scripts. The milestones that once defined adulthood — education, employment, marriage, ownership — rarely appear in sequence. The narrative has fractured, and with that fracture comes both loss and opportunity. Herminia Ibarra describes this shift clearly in Working Identity when she writes, “We learn who we are in practice, not in theory. We reinvent ourselves by doing, experimenting, and stepping into new roles.” It is a problem that calls for a new framework for understanding how work and identity evolve, one I have come to call talent clusters.

The days of the single income and the single career may well be behind us. The camera lens has widened, and with it, the way success is defined must widen too.

Students entering higher education today often inherit an outdated expectation that success depends on finding one right path and staying on it. But the modern economy no longer rewards singularity. It rewards synthesis. This is where talent clusters come in — the natural intersections of ability, curiosity, and experience that form the foundation for meaningful work. Rather than viewing careers as straight lines, these clusters invite students to see the web of connections already present in their interests and skills.

I began noticing this pattern in my own career before I had a name for it. In my life, theatre and communication have been that intersection. They didn’t compete. They conversed. Theatre taught me to listen for subtext, to inhabit perspective, and to read emotion in real time. Communication grounded me in theory and structure. It taught me how messages take shape, how persuasion works, and how to communicate ideas clearly and confidently. Together, they formed a foundation that prepared me not only to teach but also to write, to use language as both performance and connection.

When I began writing professionally, I realized I was drawing from both disciplines at once. The rhythm and tone I developed in the theatre informed my writing voice, while communication theory clarified audience, purpose, and persuasion. What looked like two paths became one integrated practice.

My experience reflects a broader truth. What seems like wandering is often a kind of weaving; the gradual merging of abilities that form something stronger than any single thread. The actor who learns to embody another person’s experience develops the empathy essential to leadership. The stage manager who coordinates complex productions gains logistical precision transferable to project management. The student who studies public speaking acquires the rhetorical awareness needed in advocacy, policy, or entrepreneurship. Each of these evolutions demonstrates the elasticity of transferable skills.

Workforce research supports this pattern. The nonprofit Jobs for the Future identifies communication, problem-solving, and creativity as “the most reliable predictors of long-term employability across industries.” The University of California, San Francisco, similarly defines portable skills as those that endure across shifting technologies and economies. Both findings affirm that artistic and professional fluency share the same core capacities: interpretation, adaptability, and disciplined imagination.

David Epstein, author of Range, writes, “The most effective people are not those who follow one path but those who explore multiple interests and connect them.” The humanities, long dismissed as soft or impractical, may therefore be among the most resilient fields of all. Theatre and communication cultivate habits of perception that remain deeply relevant: reading tone, decoding motive, and adjusting the message to the moment. They prepare students not merely to perform roles but to understand the systems in which those roles operate.

Jonathan Haidt situates this generational experience within an even wider lens. In The Anxious Generation, he notes that many young adults “feel unmoored from the stable institutions that once gave direction to their lives.” Yet that instability, while disorienting, also creates space for creative recombination. The disappearance of predetermined pathways invites a new kind of agency. It becomes the freedom to design lives that integrate multiple disciplines into meaningful coherence.

Many of my former students who began in theatre or communication now work in fields as diverse as consulting, user experience design (UX), public relations, real estate, and education. They have not abandoned their earlier training. They’ve simply translated it. The ability to connect meaning across disciplines has become a form of expertise.

Such an approach reframes the anxiety of choice. By seeking patterns, the recurring connections among their abilities and values, students can seek to define their own paths. A meaningful career, viewed through this lens, becomes a cumulative act of interpretation rather than a fixed destination. The result is not mastery of one discipline but the capacity to see how ideas speak to one another.

Translating Performance into Professional Presence

When I first began writing professionally as a content and copywriter, I noticed something familiar in the process of finding a client’s brand voice or a publication’s style. It felt like preparing a role. The work required listening for rhythm, motivation, and what I call character keys, the same instincts I practiced in the theatre for years. What I once used to understand a character, I now used to understand a brand. That connection not only helped me build continuity between theatre and writing but also gave me early confidence and, more importantly, measurable success. I knew I was on to something.

Theatre taught me that playing a character is rooted in playing action. Every moment on stage is driven by verbs: to lasso, to comfort, to resist, to reveal. Acting is not about emotion but about pursuing intention. Writing works the same way. Every effective sentence carries an action. Good copy does not describe. It moves. Whether the goal is to inform, inspire, or sell, the writer, like the actor, must choose verbs that propel intention forward. Both crafts rely on clarity of motive. The moment the action disappears, the scene or the sentence loses energy.

Theatrical training, often dismissed as niche, is an education in adaptability. It teaches how to read a room, sense emotional temperature, and adjust delivery to context. Those same instincts translate to the written page where attention and authenticity must be earned in every line. To communicate persuasively, whether on stage or in print, requires more than argument. It requires presence.

What ultimately connects these practices is the pursuit of resonance. Whether speaking to an audience or writing to a reader, the communicator’s task is to close the distance between self and other, to let recognition pass quietly between them. That moment of recognition, the shared understanding that this is true for me too, is where both art and communication do their deepest work. Acting teacher Sanford Meisner said (paraphrased), “There is something going on over there (in the other person). And something happening in here (the inner self) . . . truly paying attention is what connects the two.”

Adapting Across Roles and Redefining Success

I’ve had so many students and young people in my own life say things like, “I don’t know what my purpose is,” or “How can I learn what my purpose is supposed to be?” or even, “What is the point of all this?” Part of what they seem to be reacting to is the constant barrage of discouraging news across social media and other platforms. The other part is the same question every generation has asked, only they’re asking it in a new landscape shaped by volatility, comparison, and the pressure to define themselves early. This is where we need to pay close attention. Too often, adults respond with pity, but pity creates distance. Brené Brown says it clearly: “Empathy fuels connection. Sympathy drives disconnection.” If we feel sorry for young people, we project limitations onto them, and we can no longer help them. They don’t need pity. They need hope, presence, and leaders who will help them meet new challenges with other-focused attention.

When most students talk about “purpose,” they’re not usually describing a single calling. They are trying to articulate a desire for coherence in a life that feels connected rather than scattered. In a world of shifting roles and unstable markers of adulthood, purpose emerges from the ways students participate in their communities and apply their abilities to real situations. Jonathan Haidt captures this idea in The Happiness Hypothesis when he writes, “Happiness comes from between.” Meaning, in Haidt’s framing, grows out of the relationships between a person and the world they inhabit: their work, their commitments, and their connections. Purpose is built through engagement, not isolation.

Seen through this lens, transferable skills become essential. They allow students to discover purpose through participation. A graduate trained in theatre and communication may evolve into a writer, strategist, or educator while retaining the same internal architecture of strengths. Each role draws on the same foundation: the ability to interpret, translate, and adapt. Purpose takes shape as those skills meet real needs . . . for others and then for themselves.

For many students, this realization carries profound hope. It suggests that the search for meaning does not require narrowing the self to one direction. One discipline can open the door to another, and together they form a structure that feels cohesive, lived-in, and human.

Identifying Your Talent Clusters: A Reflective Guide

Every person carries a set of abilities that naturally intersect. Some begin as skills. Others begin as interests or instincts that, with attention and practice, develop into genuine strengths. Taken together, these patterns form the early architecture of a talent cluster. The questions below are meant to help you recognize the intersections already present in your work, interests, and habits of mind.

1. Trace your through-lines.

Which activities have consistently engaged your attention or energy across different seasons of life?
Example: Maybe you were the friend who organized school projects, planned events in college, and now color-codes work tasks. That through-line points toward a cluster involving coordination, structure, and leadership.

What themes or methods appear in everything you do, even when the contexts change?
Example: You might notice that wherever you are — school, work, or volunteering —you tend to bring people together. You create group chats, organize meetups, or help resolve tension. That pattern suggests a relationship-building cluster.

Which skills seem to travel with you from one role or discipline to another?
Example: If you have used clear communication in many settings — calming a customer, explaining a task to a teammate, or helping a friend make a decision — that mobility signals a communication cluster that strengthens almost every profession.

2. Name your complementary skills.

What comes naturally to you that others often notice or rely on?
Example: If people often come to you to translate confusing information, whether it’s a work memo, a form, or a family decision, that points toward a clarity and interpretation cluster rooted in communication.

Which strengths balance or enhance one another?
Example: If you love generating ideas but also enjoy organizing them into steps, that pairing suggests a creative-strategy cluster that is valuable in writing, design, planning, or entrepreneurship.

Are there pairings of skills that make you unusually effective or fulfilled when used together?
Example: If you listen deeply but also know how to offer direct solutions, that blend indicates a strategic empathy cluster that is powerful in leadership, counseling, coaching, and team development.

3. Observe your patterns of satisfaction.

When do you feel most alive, focused, or capable?
Example: If you feel most energized when learning something new and then immediately teaching it to someone else, that signals a learning-to-teaching cluster common to educators, trainers, and communicators.

What kinds of tasks give you a sense of both challenge and clarity?
Example: If you love tasks where you get to make something make sense, like editing, organizing, or redesigning, that aligns with a problem-solving and systems cluster.

In which environments do you feel your perspective adds value?
Example: If people often say, I did not see it that way until you explained it, you may have a perspective-shifting cluster that is useful in storytelling, analysis, user experience, and leadership.

4. Reframe your so-called detours.

Look back at past jobs, studies, or interests that seemed disconnected at the time. What common learning thread ties them together now?
Example: If working in childcare taught you patience, retail taught you communication, and volunteer work taught you compassion, the thread points toward a people-centered service cluster.

What did those experiences teach you about how you think, solve problems, or relate to others?
Example: If you notice you always jumped in to calm conflict or clarify misunderstandings, your experiences reveal a mediation and understanding cluster.

Which past experiences might not be mistakes, but the raw material of synthesis?
Example: If a past interest in photography sharpened your eye for visual detail, that experience enriches a visual communication cluster even if you no longer pursue photography itself.

5. Articulate your emerging cluster.

If you had to name the intersection of your skills and passions in one phrase, what would it be, such as creative communication, strategic empathy, or analytical storytelling?

How might this cluster of strengths apply across different fields or industries?

What kinds of work would allow all parts of this cluster to grow together rather than compete?

Get Curious!

Talent clusters are not fixed identities. They’re living relationships among your skills. They reveal what you can do and how your ways of thinking and creating naturally connect. When you recognize those patterns, your career path shifts from feeling like a maze to functioning as a map.

The Four Types of Listening: Understanding the Art of Attention

By Jill Szoo Wilson

“The most basic of all human needs is the need to understand and be understood. The best way to understand people is to listen to them.”
— Ralph G. Nichols, often called the father of listening research

Listening is the most underestimated of the communication arts. We are trained to write, to speak, to persuade, and to present, yet few are ever taught how to listen with intention. To listen well is not a passive act but an active form of attention that shapes meaning, relationship, and understanding. It’s the moment where perception meets interpretation and where human connection either succeeds or fails.

Communication theory defines this exchange as transactional, meaning that communication is not simply sent and received but created between people. As Adler, Rosenfeld, and Proctor describe, it is “the process of creating meaning through symbolic interaction.” Within this transactional exchange, listening becomes the point of highest concentration, where attention turns into understanding. Carl Rogers called it dangerous, precisely because true listening requires vulnerability; it asks us to suspend judgment and risk being changed by what we hear.

Listening, then, is not one behavior but many. Research by Kittie Watson, Larry Barker, and James Weaver III identifies four dominant listening orientations: time-focused, task-focused, relational, and analytical. Each reflects a distinct way of processing information and a different set of underlying values. This essay examines these four types of listening as a framework for understanding how we attend, interpret, and ultimately connect with one another.

Time-Focused Listening (Chronemic Listening)

Time-focused listening is driven by the belief that attention should move quickly, clearly, and without excess. It values brevity, structure, and the efficient use of minutes. In communication studies, this approach is linked to chronemics, the study of how time itself communicates meaning. Anthropologist Edward T. Hall observed that we “speak” through time as much as through language; we reveal respect, impatience, or control by how we manage it. To those who listen in a time-focused way, punctuality and precision are signals of competence. Listening, in this sense, is a tool for progress.

There are contexts in which this style works beautifully. In an emergency room, efficiency can save a life. In an executive meeting, it can save a company hour after hour of unproductive debate. A time-focused listener cuts through digression and demands the essential: What happened? What’s next? The conversation moves forward.

Yet the very strength of this style can also be its undoing. When efficiency becomes the highest good, conversation risks losing its depth. Meaning is trimmed, edited, and sometimes distorted in the rush to move forward. A dialogue that might have opened into understanding ends the moment it becomes inconvenient. The drive to stay on schedule can flatten nuance and quiet emotion, both of which need more time than the time-focused listener is willing to allow.

Chronemic listening reminds us that time is both a boundary and a message. The length of a pause, the patience of silence, and the willingness to let another person finish communicate as powerfully as the words being used. The discipline of listening does not reject efficiency, but it resists hurry. To listen well is to know when time serves clarity and when it threatens understanding. The best listeners master both.

Most people do not choose their listening style any more than they choose their accent. It develops quietly, shaped by what life has required of them. A nurse learns to listen for urgency. A parent learns to listen for need. An executive learns to listen for solutions. Over time, those habits start to feel like personality, when in fact they are responses to circumstance. Yet habits can shift. Once a person becomes aware of how they listen, they begin to notice the moments when that habit no longer serves them. They begin to recognize what once went unnoticed — the pause that deserves patience, and the silence that carries meaning — and in that awareness, the act of listening becomes less about efficiency and more about presence.

Behaviors you might observe:

Interrupts or redirects when conversation feels too slow or repetitive
Prefers summaries, timelines, and concise explanations
Checks the time or shifts body posture when discussions run long
Emphasizes deadlines and next steps over reflection
Speaks in short, efficient bursts rather than elaborating

Literary Reflections:

In Hamlet, impatience with words that circle without arriving at meaning captures the time-focused listener’s need for progress.
Hemingway’s Hills Like White Elephants turns brevity into both virtue and limitation; its spare dialogue mirrors the efficiency and avoidance of this style.
The clipped exchanges in Beckett’s Endgame reveal how the desire to finish speaking can become indistinguishable from despair.

Task-Focused Listening (Action-Oriented Listening)

Task-focused listening approaches communication as a means to an end. It listens for action, not for feeling, and measures success by what gets done rather than what gets understood. Communication scholars often describe this as action-oriented listening because it privileges the completion of tasks over the exploration of emotions. Its central question is simple: What are the steps?

This listening style is common in professional and technical environments where precision matters. Engineers, coaches, and project managers often exemplify it. They listen for data, instructions, and solutions. They want structure, not story. The speaker who wanders into emotion or ambiguity risks losing their attention, not because they lack empathy, but because their focus has already shifted to implementation.

There is an undeniable efficiency in this approach. It brings order to complex projects and gives structure to communication. Teams stay aligned, and goals become measurable. A task-focused listener reduces confusion and promotes accountability, turning discussion into direction. Meetings that might once have drifted end with decisions. In a culture that prizes productivity, this kind of clarity can feel like mastery, the mark of someone who not only listens but delivers.

Yet the strength of this style can slip into excess. When listening becomes purely instrumental, every exchange is measured by its outcome. People start to feel like problems to be solved rather than voices to be heard. A colleague seeking understanding may receive a solution instead. A partner expressing worry may be met with advice. The task-focused listener hears information but misses emotion, and what is efficient begins to feel detached.

Good communicators learn to adjust. They sense when a conversation needs movement and when it needs mercy. In a crisis, this style can bring direction and calm. In a moment of fear or doubt, it can create distance. The art lies in knowing the difference. True listening asks for patience, for the courage to stay with what is unresolved. The task-focused listener grows when they learn that not every question requires an answer, and not every silence demands a plan. Sometimes the most skillful action is to wait, to hear fully, and to let meaning unfold on its own.

Behaviors you might observe:

Asks solution-driven questions such as “What do we need to do?”
Takes notes or creates lists while others are still talking
Moves quickly from discussion to implementation
Rephrases statements into actions or instructions
Struggles to remain engaged when the conversation turns emotional or abstract

Literary Reflections:

In Kafka’s The Trial, listening collapses into procedure. Every response is measured against a task no one fully understands.
George and Lennie in Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men illustrate how pragmatic listening preserves survival but erodes tenderness.
Camus’ The Stranger exposes the sterility of communication reduced to function, where understanding gives way to process.

Relational Listening (People-Oriented Listening)

Relational listening is the art of hearing people, not just words. It centers on empathy, emotional nuance, and the subtle cues that reveal what someone truly means. Communication scholars describe this as people-oriented listening because it prioritizes understanding the person behind the message rather than the message alone. The relational listener’s guiding question is not What happened? or What should I do? but How does this person feel?

Where time-focused and task-focused listeners aim for progress, relational listeners aim for connection. Their attention is tuned to tone, pacing, pauses, and body language — the invisible grammar of emotion. They notice when a voice tightens, when silence stretches too long, or when laughter masks discomfort. To them, listening is a form of care. They listen to affirm dignity, create safety, and remind others that their experience matters.

The strength of this style lies in its generosity. When people feel heard, they relax into honesty. When they sense genuine empathy, they risk saying more. In counseling, teaching, and ministry, relational listening is often the bridge that allows difficult truths to surface. The listener’s patience becomes a kind of hospitality, a quiet invitation that says, Go ahead, and finish your thought.

Even empathy needs structure. When relational listening stretches too far, compassion can turn into depletion. The listener begins to carry emotions that do not belong to them, mistaking absorption for understanding. Out of kindness, they may soften hard truths or avoid conflict altogether. What begins as care can quietly become a burden. Over time, the constant pull to soothe and affirm leaves the listener weary. True empathy does not require taking on another person’s pain; it asks for presence without possession. Skilled relational listeners learn to stay open without being overtaken.

To listen relationally is to recognize that communication is not merely an exchange of information but an encounter between human lives. It transforms listening from a polite gesture into a moral act that honors both the speaker’s story and the listener’s limits.

Behaviors you might observe:

Maintains gentle eye contact and open posture
Uses verbal affirmations such as “I understand” or “That sounds difficult”
Allows silence to stretch without rushing to fill it
Mirrors emotion through tone or facial expression
Notices changes in energy, mood, or body language and adjusts response accordingly

Literary Reflections:

In Woolf’s To the Lighthouse, characters listen less to words than to the emotional current beneath them. Connection emerges in the space between sentences.
Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard depicts the fatigue of constant empathy; everyone listens, yet no one is truly heard.
In Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth Bennet’s insight arises from learning to listen without projection. Misunderstanding gives way to recognition.

Analytical Listening (Content-Oriented Listening)

Analytical listening seeks to understand before it judges. It is a methodical and often contemplative way of attending to information. Communication researchers describe this as content-oriented listening because it focuses on ideas, evidence, and reasoning rather than emotion or efficiency. The analytical listener’s question is, What is true here, and how do I know?

This orientation thrives in environments that prize depth of thought such as universities, courtrooms, laboratories, and newsrooms. Analytical listeners are comfortable with ambiguity. They prefer complexity to certainty and are willing to hold competing ideas in tension until clarity emerges. Their patience for uncertainty can feel unsettling to those who want quick answers, yet this restraint is precisely what allows analysis to deepen understanding.

Analytical listeners excel in situations that demand discernment. They attend to structure, logic, and supporting detail. They look for patterns in language, for assumptions buried inside arguments, and for evidence that distinguishes opinion from fact. They are often the ones who pause before responding, not because they are disengaged, but because they are still listening, not only to the speaker but to their own developing understanding.

Still, this style carries its own risks. The analytical listener may appear detached or overly cerebral. In a commitment to objectivity, they can miss the emotional undercurrents that shape how meaning is received. A purely analytical approach to human conversation can flatten what should be relational. Understanding the content of a message is not the same as understanding its impact.

The discipline of analytical listening reminds us that comprehension and empathy are not opposites but partners. Thought without empathy becomes sterile; empathy without thought becomes unmoored. The most effective communicators are those who can think critically without ceasing to care.

Behaviors you might observe:

Asks clarifying or probing questions before responding
Takes time to process before speaking
Analyzes the logic or structure of what is being said
References evidence, examples, or inconsistencies in arguments
Appears calm or neutral even during emotionally charged discussions

Literary Reflections:

In Twelve Angry Men, Juror Eight models analytical listening as moral discipline, withholding judgment until comprehension is complete.
T. S. Eliot’s The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock portrays a mind so devoted to precision that it loses the ability to act.
Orwell’s 1984 presents analytical listening under constraint, where discernment itself becomes an act of rebellion.

Conclusion

Listening represents a continuum of attentional choice. Each orientation, time-focused, task-focused, relational, and analytical, highlights a distinct way of organizing perception and constructing meaning. Together, they illustrate how listeners shape understanding through focus, habit, and value.

Within the transactional model of communication, meaning arises through interaction. Listener and speaker participate equally in that exchange, shaping one another’s interpretations as the dialogue unfolds. Listening functions as the center of communication, the place where awareness becomes understanding and understanding becomes relationship.

To study listening is to study connection itself. Every exchange of attention expands the shared field of meaning between people, allowing communication to do what it was designed to do: create understanding that endures beyond words.

Teaching Gen Z in the Age of AI

For as much as my university colleagues are talking about how AI affects students, and how it’s either sharpening or dulling their cognitive tools for research, I find it curious how little the students themselves are actually using AI or even talking about it. When I brought the topic up with my freshmen, one of them said, “When you say AI, do you mean TikTok?”

That response startled me, but it didn’t entirely surprise me. I work with students ranging from middle school to college: teens and young adults who are bright, creative, curious, and digitally native. They live online. They edit videos, write fanfiction, build memes, and scroll endlessly. They’ve never known a world without the internet. So I assumed, perhaps naively, that when ChatGPT exploded onto the scene, they’d have thoughts, opinions, even fears.

What I’ve seen instead is something more slippery; a kind of casual indifference. AI is in their world, sure, but it doesn’t seem to register as world-changing, at least not in a way they can name.

Surface-Level Familiarity

Most of the students I work with know about AI in the same way they know about autocorrect or Spotify recommendations: it’s background noise. They joke about using ChatGPT to write essays. They’ve seen their favorite YouTubers feed prompts into image generators. They might even follow meme pages that poke fun at AI’s awkwardness.

When I ask how they feel about it—what it means for their future, for creativity, for work—I get blank stares, or shrugs, or “I don’t know, I guess it’s just part of life now.”

This isn’t ignorance. It’s ambient awareness without urgency. Which, ironically, might be even more dangerous.

Apathy or Adaptation?

There’s a fine line between not caring and not questioning because something feels inevitable.

What I’ve come to believe is that many young people are already adapting to AI, but without the language or guidance to examine what that adaptation means. They are, in a sense, growing up alongside the machine and assuming this is simply how things are. As tech philosopher Douglas Rushkoff puts it, “We are living in a world that is no longer about us. We are living in a world designed for technology” (Rushkoff, Program or Be Programmed, 2010).

To them, AI isn’t a disruption. It’s just Tuesday.

What Schools Aren’t Teaching

One college student told me, “We never really talk about AI in class unless it’s to say don’t cheat with it.” This reflects a larger issue: many schools are still struggling to update their policies on AI use, and even more so when it comes to adapting their teaching methods. Instead of exploring AI as a tool for learning, the focus tends to be on warning students about using it dishonestly.

While some educators are doing meaningful work to incorporate tech conversations, many schools, especially in the humanities and arts, haven’t integrated AI into their curricula at all. When AI is addressed, it’s often treated as a threat: “Don’t use this to plagiarize.” But that’s not education; it’s a warning label.

Topics like algorithmic bias, the ethics of automation, surveillance capitalism, copyright confusion, and the commodification of creativity are rarely discussed, yet these are exactly the areas that today’s students will inherit. The limited discourse tends to be reactive rather than proactive. In many cases, teachers themselves (me included!) are still figuring out what these tools mean.

And there’s a gap here that’s worth naming: students are increasingly using AI informally (for brainstorming, summarizing, solving equations), but they’re not being taught how to assess its limitations, how it was trained, or what implications it carries. Without structured critical thinking exercises or media literacy units built around AI, students are left to sort fact from fiction on their own. Unsurprisingly, many disengage altogether.

Even though organizations like Common Sense Media and UNESCO have called for AI literacy education (UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research, 2023), most students are still being handed tools without blueprints. They’re digital natives, but that doesn’t mean they’re digitally literate.

In a discussion with my college freshmen about potential dangers in using AI, one of the students astutely said, “I don’t fear being repetitive, I fear never being able to say something unique because everything has already been said.” Philosophically, I empathized with her statement. I think in some ways we all feel this. But what struck me was that I wondered if she was right.

One of my high school students told me that his father works with AI software and let him use it to write an essay for school—not one he actually turned in, but as a means to demonstrate how AI generation works. The student’s final analysis was that it caused him anxiety. He said, “How can I ever write anything that will be truly helpful to the world? I feel like my brain would have to speed up and get to the point more quickly than AI, and I don’t think that’s possible.” Another student responded, “Calm down, bruh. Just keep playing The Last of Us.” The class laughed. I laughed too. But I also felt a sense of foreboding that I didn’t want to introduce into these fifteen- and sixteen-year-olds.

A Creative Way In

What’s worked best in my world isn’t lecturing about AI ethics; it’s storytelling. And more specifically, asking “what if” questions that make the abstract personal.

For example:

“What if an AI wrote your favorite show, and it was good enough that you didn’t notice?”
“What if your voice was cloned and used in a YouTube ad you never recorded?”
“What if your college application essay was flagged because someone assumed AI wrote it?”
“What if AI generated a fake video of you doing something you didn’t do?”

These questions shift the conversation from distant tech talk to immediate personal stakes. I’ve watched students, middle schoolers even, go from smirking to stunned in a matter of seconds when shown a real deepfake. It’s not just about explaining what generative AI is; it’s about helping them feel the implications of it.

Creative expression helps unlock that shift.

In one class, I asked students to write short monologues from the perspective of someone living in a world where human art is outlawed because AI does it faster. The results were moving. Several wrote about grief. Some wrote about rage. One student wrote about forgetting what real creativity feels like: “I lifted my hand to paint a flower, and the petals reminded me of a flower I saw online. I stopped seeing the real flower and tried to paint the one I remembered instead.”

I don’t know about you, but that still gives me goosebumps.

This kind of imaginative work invites empathy, agency, and reflection—all of which are in short supply when the conversation stays stuck at “AI is just a tool.”

Art-based learning has always been a mirror to society. When we let students look into that mirror through theatre, creative writing, or design, they begin to see their own digital landscape more clearly.

The Urgency of AI Awareness

Middle schoolers, high schoolers, and college students are not just future workers in an AI-saturated economy. They are future parents, pastors, teachers, lawmakers, and ethicists. If they are passive now, the consequences will be exponential later.

And here’s the thing: they don’t need to become experts. They don’t even need to have polished positions. But they do need space to ask questions, and adults who are willing to ask those questions with them.

The rise of AI in their lives is not a looming threat on the horizon. It’s already here, shaping how they search, think, interact, and create. If we want them to be active participants in this moment rather than silent subjects of it, we would serve them well to begin where they are: with curiosity, with context, and with imagination.

The future of AI won’t be written by algorithms. It will be written by the choices we make and by whether we prepare students to shape what comes next.

The Garden Between Us: On the Moral Work of Communication

By Jill Szoo Wilson

No Kings protests. Israel and Palestine peace talks. The Mayoral debate in New York City. And somewhere between those headlines, a viral argument about whether pumpkin spice season begins too early.

What a week!

During a class discussion on the topic of ethical communication, one of my students made an observation that stayed with me:

“Sometimes I walk away from a conversation with one of my friends or family members, and I think they really understood what I was saying. Then, like a week later, I’ll see something they post on social media and realize — whoa — we weren’t even in the same universe. How do you know if someone actually gets what you’re saying?”

There was real frustration in her voice as she grappled intellectually and emotionally with how to translate effective communication skills from the classroom to real-world relationships and conversations that truly matter to her.

Her question strikes at the heart of communication theory itself. Every major model—from Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver’s early work in information theory to the later transactional and constructivist frameworks—grapples with the same problem she voiced: how does meaning move from one mind to another without distortion? Communication is never just about speaking clearly; it’s about whether understanding travels intact from one mind to another. The first modern attempt to diagram that process came in 1948, when two Bell Labs researchers sought to solve a practical problem—how to transmit information efficiently over telephone lines—and ended up shaping a foundation for how we consider human connection today.

Section I: The Shannon–Weaver Model — Communication as Transmission

When Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver introduced their model of communication in 1948, they weren’t thinking about classrooms or conversations; they were thinking about telephones. Shannon, a mathematician at Bell Labs, was studying how to send messages through electrical circuits with the least amount of interference. His goal was precision: a system in which information could be transmitted, received, and decoded without distortion.

In its simplest form, the Shannon–Weaver Model outlines five key components: a sender, a message, a channel, noise, and a receiver. Later versions added feedback to acknowledge that communication rarely ends at reception; it loops back through response. The model’s simplicity made it foundational for how we understand all forms of message exchange, from radio broadcasts to human dialogue.

Imagine you’re explaining something important to a friend. You form the thought (sender), put it into words (message), speak aloud (channel), and hope it reaches the listener (receiver). Noise—anything from background chatter to the friend’s assumptions or daydreams—can distort what you mean. Feedback, whether a nod or a question, helps you gauge whether your message landed.

Now imagine trying to apologize to someone you care about after a painful misunderstanding. You’ve rehearsed the conversation for days, turning phrases over in your mind, searching for the language that might soften what was said. When the moment finally comes, you speak from the heart, but your voice trembles. You mean to say “I’m sorry,” yet what they hear is “I’m still defending myself.” You reach out, and somehow they retreat. The words are correct, but the meaning collapses somewhere between intent and reception.

The Shannon–Weaver Model helps us see the anatomy of that collapse. The “noise” isn’t external static or interference, but the invisible internal weight of emotion, memory, and assumption. Even when a message is spoken clearly, those unseen forces can bend it out of shape. The model reminds us that successful communication isn’t about flawless delivery but about whether understanding survives the distance between two people.

The model is practical but limited: it shows how messages move, not how meaning emerges. Shannon and Weaver understood communication as a linear transfer of data; humans experience it as something far more collaborative — a process of interpretation, empathy, and response.

This distinction is important because even a perfectly transmitted message can still fail to communicate meaning. As my student asked, “How do you know if someone actually gets what you’re saying?” According to Shannon and Weaver, you’d simply confirm that the message was received and decoded. But real understanding, as anyone who has been misunderstood knows, is not that simple. It requires shared context, empathy, and attention to nuance. These are elements that don’t fit neatly into a circuit diagram.

The Shannon–Weaver Model gives us a starting point: communication as transmission. Yet it leaves us asking what happens beyond transmission, where ideas meet perception. To explore that terrain, we turn to one of the most enduring frameworks in contemporary communication: Barnlund’s Transactional Model.

Section II: Barnlund’s Transactional Model — Communication as Co-Creation

By the 1970s, communication theorist Dean Barnlund proposed a shift so profound that it still reshapes how we teach the subject today. Where Shannon and Weaver treated communication as a line of transmission, Barnlund imagined something circular, alive, and reciprocal. He argued that the exchange itself was not an assembly line of words moving from one mind to another but a living process that creates a shared narrative between people.

Barnlund’s Transactional Model reimagined this process not as a one-way transfer of information but as a dynamic act of co-creation. Every conversation, he suggested, is an event that exists only in the moment it happens, built, revised, and reshaped by both participants at once. The act of meaning-making is mutual. Each person’s interpretation alters the message itself. In this way, communication becomes less about accuracy and more about emergence.

To help students see what this looks like, I often begin with an exercise that never fails to surprise them. I pair students and ask them to tell a simple story from their weekend. The first partner speaks for thirty seconds while the other listens silently, offering no reaction or feedback. Then they switch. When we debrief, most describe the silence as unsettling, even cold. “I felt like I was boring him or maybe he wasn’t even listening,” one student said. The second round changes everything. This time, listeners can nod, smile, or ask questions. The conversation immediately warms. Laughter enters the room. Meaning deepens. What changed wasn’t the content of the stories but the shared construction of them. Each speaker began shaping their language in response to the listener’s cues. Together, they built a small, co-authored moment of understanding.

If Shannon and Weaver gave us the map of communication, Barnlund taught us how to read the terrain. His model asks us to notice the pauses, gestures, silences, and emotional undercurrents that live beneath language. Meaning, he argued, is not simply sent; it is negotiated, felt, and co-authored.

Where Shannon and Weaver saw a sender and receiver, Barnlund saw communicators engaged in simultaneous exchange. Each person is both sender and receiver at once, continually encoding, decoding, and interpreting within a shared field of experience. Communication, in this view, is about negotiating reality together.

Section III: From Transmission to Transformation — Understanding the Difference

The Shannon-Weaver model teaches how to speak clearly, while Barnlund’s model teaches why clarity is sometimes not enough. One focuses on information; the other on interpretation. One aims for precision; the other for understanding.

Learning Shannon-Weaver fosters autonomy. It helps us become aware of purpose, audience, and structure. Learning Barnlund brings humility. It reminds us that even the most carefully crafted message depends on another person’s frame of meaning. There is comfort in realizing this: sometimes we can speak with care and still not be understood. Our responsibility is to communicate as clearly and honestly as we can, and then to accept the outcome rather than trying to control it. There is strength in understanding that we do not have to be fully understood to be worthy of speaking.

A simple exercise illustrates the difference. Imagine describing an image while someone, turned away, tries to draw it based only on your words. The first attempt, with no questions allowed, is pure Shannon-Weaver transmission. The drawing will likely be efficient but distorted. Now imagine trying again with questions and clarifications. The process slows, but understanding grows. Meaning, like art, becomes clearer when it is co-created.

Think of the miscommunication between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice. For most of the novel, each interprets the other through the noise of pride, prejudice, and social expectation. Darcy’s words are technically clear—his first proposal is grammatical perfection—but his tone, timing, and failure to consider Elizabeth’s perspective distort the message beyond recognition. It takes a long series of feedback loops—letters, revelations, and changed behavior—for meaning to realign with intent. Only when both listen with humility rather than defensiveness does understanding emerge. Austen’s scene endures because it dramatizes the very truth Barnlund uncovered: communication becomes transformative only when both parties risk vulnerability and mutual perception.

The shift from transmission to creation mirrors a moral one. To communicate ethically is to recognize that every exchange plants something between people: a seed that can grow into trust or misunderstanding, grace or distance. The philosopher Martin Buber, writing in 1923 in I and Thou, taught that real life unfolds through genuine encounter. “All real living is meeting,” he wrote, describing how we come fully alive when we engage another person not as an object to persuade but as a presence to meet. Every tone of voice and every moment of attention becomes soil for what will take root between us. Our words are seeds, and the spaces we tend together become the garden we live in.

That realization gives us a kind of power that is both humbling and hopeful. It means that everyday choices in conversation — things like listening fully, asking questions, or pausing before reacting — can repair trust where there was once distance. Communication becomes not just a skill but a responsibility: the way we decide, moment by moment, what kind of relationships and communities we will build.

My student’s question still lingers: How do you know if someone actually gets what you’re saying? Understanding grows each time we listen with patience and speak with care. It lives in the meeting itself, in the ongoing work of tending meaning between people. When we stay present to one another, communication becomes the living art of truly meeting another human being.

For more essays by Jill Szoo Wilson on Substack, click here!

Persuasion Vs. Manipulation

By Jill Szoo Wilson

Prologue

This semester, our incoming group of budding communicators is particularly cantankerous, in the best possible way. In twenty years of teaching, I’ve never been challenged more on the details of what I teach. Many professors lament this sort of thing, but for me, it’s pure fun. I love a good debate and always welcome the chance to sharpen my own focus as a teacher and a communicator.

Over the past few weeks, we’ve been exploring argumentation, debate, and persuasion. One of our liveliest discussions centered on a deceptively simple question: What is the difference between persuasion and manipulation?

This essay is my answer.

The Human Impulse to Persuade

Every one of us has tried, at some point, to change another person’s mind. My first experiments with persuasion began on the front lawn of my grandparents’ house with my cousin, who was two years older than me. Everything was fair game to become a competition. “I’ll race you to the car!” “I can go higher on the swing than you can!”

When speed and strength were involved, he almost always won. So I learned early to change tactics. Once he could outrun me, I turned to logic: “Since I’m two years younger than you, I should get a ten-second head start.” This rarely worked, but I admired the sound of my own reasoning. When our contests moved to an even playing field—say, over the last red popsicle—I shifted to rhetorical flair. If he grabbed red and I got orange, I would praise my orange with the conviction of a first-grade philosopher: “Orange popsicles taste sweeter, juicier, and more like the real fruit. Red popsicles don’t taste like real cherries.” What I really wanted, of course, was for him to reconsider, to see orange as the better flavor and trade with me. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it didn’t.

Even then, I was learning something that Aristotle would later help me understand more clearly: persuasion is not a learned trick but a human instinct. From childhood onward, we use language to shape the world to our liking, to win an argument, to soften a disagreement, or to make another person see as we see. Persuasion begins as play, but it quickly becomes the architecture of human connection.

Persuasion is, at its heart, an effort to reach beyond oneself, to connect what we know with what another might come to understand. It takes shape in the meeting of reason and desire, where logic provides structure and emotion gives movement. When both work together, persuasion becomes not a contest of wills but a bridge of understanding.

Yet persuasion is never a neutral act. Every effort to influence another person carries both risk and possibility: the risk of distortion and the possibility of connection. To persuade well is not to overpower but to invite, not to dominate but to guide. Within that same impulse lies a shadow side, which is the temptation to control rather than to clarify, or engineer an agreement rather than earn it. The real difference between argumentation and manipulation begins long before the words are spoken. It begins with intent.

Communication scholars have long explored how influence operates, how ideas move from one person or group to another, and how that movement may shift from open persuasion into covert control.

Long before communication became a field of study, persuasion occupied a central place in public life. In ancient Greece, it was regarded as essential to citizenship, the means by which ideas could be tested, debated, and defended in the public square. In Rhetoric, Aristotle defined rhetoric as “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.” Through this definition, he presented persuasion as a disciplined process of inquiry, a practice grounded in observation and judgment rather than performance. It was, at its core, an intellectual art that sought to uncover the most fitting means of conveying truth to an audience capable of reason.

Embedded within this framework is an assumption that continues to shape the study of communication: persuasion, when practiced ethically, engages the whole person. For Aristotle, effective persuasion balanced logos, pathos, and ethos—reason, emotion, and character—so that intellect and feeling could work together toward understanding. Ethical persuasion, therefore, requires an awareness of the audience’s capacity for discernment and a respect for the autonomy of that discernment. To persuade is not to impose our will upon another but to participate in a shared act of reasoning.

Modern communication theory continues to explore this relationship between persuasion and ethics. Whether in classrooms, politics, or media, the complexity of contemporary discourse often obscures the distinction between persuasion and manipulation. The methods of influence have evolved, yet the moral question remains: how can a communicator move others toward action without distorting their capacity for choice?

Alan H. Monroe’s Motivated Sequence, developed at Purdue University in the 1930s, offers one of the most enduring frameworks for organizing persuasive discourse. Built on principles of human reasoning and motivation, the sequence follows five stages—Attention, Need, Satisfaction, Visualization, and Action—each corresponding to a psychological movement in the listener. The communicator first gains attention by presenting something vivid, relevant, or surprising enough to make the audience listen. The second step, need, identifies a problem or condition that requires change, prompting the audience to recognize its significance. In satisfaction, the speaker proposes a clear and reasonable solution to that need. Visualization invites the audience to imagine the outcome of adopting or rejecting the proposed solution, giving emotional dimension to the argument. Finally, action calls for a specific response that translates conviction into behavior.

Monroe’s structure endures because it mirrors the natural progression of human decision-making: perception, comprehension, evaluation, and response. Each stage engages both logic and emotion, appealing simultaneously to logos and pathos, while the speaker’s credibility, or ethos, sustains trust throughout the process. When practiced with integrity, the sequence creates a dialogue rather than a performance, guiding speaker and listener toward shared understanding. It treats persuasion as a cooperative act in which reasoning and imagination work together to illuminate truth and inspire responsible choice.

Manipulation breaks the dialogue. It turns communication into control, replacing mutual understanding with managed response. The difference between the two lies in motive. Argumentation seeks truth through participation, trusting that others can reason freely. Manipulation, by contrast, treats truth as secondary to outcome. It uses fragments of truth to steer perception toward a predetermined goal.

Understanding how argumentation fosters participation requires a closer look at how Monroe’s model translates the ethics of persuasion into structure.

Section I: Persuasion as Co-Authorship — Monroe’s Motivated Sequence

Monroe’s Motivated Sequence demonstrates that persuasion, at its best, is not an act of domination but of collaboration. As noted above, its five stages — Attention, Need, Satisfaction, Visualization, and Action — form more than a sequence of rhetorical moves; they map the cognitive and emotional rhythm through which conviction takes shape. Each step invites the audience to participate in discovery. Attention asks the listener to notice. Need prompts recognition of a problem that requires collective reasoning. Satisfaction proposes a solution, but it is the listener’s agreement that grants it coherence. Visualization engages imagination, allowing both speaker and audience to see the consequences of choice. Action completes the process, translating understanding into movement.

This progression reveals persuasion as an act of shared authorship. Meaning is not imposed but constructed in the space between communicator and audience. Monroe emphasized that persuasion “must be based upon a sincere desire to help the audience,” grounding the entire model in ethical intent (Principles and Types of Speech, 1935). The communicator’s purpose is to awaken reflection, not to engineer consent. When used with integrity, Monroe’s framework affirms the listener’s agency: it assumes that choice, not compliance, is the ultimate measure of success.

Manipulation, however, imitates this process while emptying it of reciprocity. It copies the outward form of persuasion — capturing attention, naming a need, proposing a solution — but removes the listener’s genuine role in reasoning. To clarify this distinction:

It imitates structure but removes exchange. Manipulation retains the stages of persuasion but strips them of dialogue. The communicator determines the desired outcome and designs the message to lead the audience there without true participation.
It fabricates or inflates need. Ethical persuasion identifies real problems that can be solved through evidence and reasoning; manipulation often creates or exaggerates problems to generate urgency or fear.
It converts reasoning into reaction. By heightening consequences and emotional charge, manipulation pressures the listener to respond quickly rather than reflect critically.
It transforms dialogue into design. What was once a conversation becomes a calculated system of cues meant to elicit compliance. The audience ceases to be a co-author and becomes a variable in an engineered outcome.
It achieves effect without understanding. Manipulation may look successful because it produces agreement or action, yet its success is hollow. True persuasion results in shared comprehension; manipulation stops at behavior.

In each of these distortions, manipulation replaces conversation with control. What appears persuasive achieves only reaction, not understanding.

This ethical structure finds its counterpart in how messages are processed. The next major framework, developed by Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo, explores the psychology of reception, which is how audiences move between reflection and reaction.

Section II: The Elaboration Likelihood Model — Depth vs. Deception

Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo’s Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion (1986) provides one of the clearest distinctions between ethical argumentation and manipulation. The model identifies two routes to persuasion: the central route, which involves careful and thoughtful consideration of arguments, and the peripheral route, which relies on superficial cues such as attractiveness, status, or emotional appeal.

Argumentation engages the central route. It requires the audience to evaluate claims, assess evidence, and integrate the message into their existing framework of understanding. Manipulation, conversely, depends on the peripheral route, using distraction and affect to short-circuit deliberation. Political slogans, viral advertising, and disinformation campaigns often thrive in this space, much like the rapid, emotionally charged content cycles of TikTok, where engagement is driven less by reflection than by immediacy of response. Such environments reward reaction over reasoning, conditioning audiences to feel before they think.

Petty and Cacioppo note that when motivation and ability to process information are high, persuasion through the central route produces “more enduring attitude change” (Communication and Persuasion, 1986). Manipulative messages may succeed in the short term, but they erode trust over time and weaken the habits of reflection on which a democratic society depends. The communicator’s ethical duty, therefore, is to foster conditions where central processing can occur; to create clarity rather than confusion and engagement rather than reflex.

Case Study: Depth vs. Surface in Persuasion

A marketing study conducted in the 2010s applied the Elaboration Likelihood Model to a national outdoor-gear campaign that ran two versions of the same advertisement. The first appeared in specialist magazines devoted to hiking and mountaineering. It featured detailed product specifications, expert testimonials, and comparisons grounded in evidence—a clear appeal to the central route of persuasion. The second appeared in general-interest magazines, replacing technical content with striking imagery and celebrity endorsement, relying instead on the peripheral route.

The results revealed a familiar but instructive pattern. Readers of the specialist publications, who were highly motivated and able to evaluate the arguments, demonstrated deeper and longer-lasting attitude change. They could articulate why they preferred the product and were more likely to repurchase it later. Readers of the general-interest magazines responded quickly to the aesthetic and emotional appeal, but their enthusiasm faded once the novelty passed.

This contrast captures the heart of Petty and Cacioppo’s model: the central route yields durable conviction because it engages thought, whereas the peripheral route yields temporary compliance because it stimulates reaction. In an attention economy dominated by visual saturation and emotional immediacy, the study reminds communicators that persuasion built on understanding endures longer than persuasion built on impulse.

Even when persuasion engages reason, it must still contend with belief. No argument reaches a neutral audience; every listener carries a network of convictions, loyalties, and prior judgments that shape how information is received. The next framework, Social Judgment Theory, explains this terrain by examining how attitudes form zones of acceptance and rejection, and how communicators must navigate them to foster genuine understanding.

Section III: Social Judgment Theory — The Battleground of Belief

Social Judgment Theory, developed by Muzafer Sherif and Carl Hovland in the 1960s, offers one of the most psychologically elegant explanations for how persuasion interacts with belief. It begins with a simple observation: people do not approach new ideas as blank slates. Every listener carries an existing position—an anchor—against which all messages are measured. Around that anchor lie three zones of response: a latitude of acceptance, where ideas feel familiar or reasonable; a latitude of rejection, where they feel threatening or extreme; and a latitude of noncommitment, where uncertainty allows openness to change.

Persuasion succeeds when a message lands within or near the listener’s latitude of acceptance, inviting reflection and gradual movement toward a new position. When a message falls inside the latitude of rejection, it provokes resistance instead. Listeners perceive the idea as more extreme than it is—a contrast effect—and often shift their anchor even farther away, strengthening their opposition. This reaction, known as the boomerang effect, reveals that attempts to force agreement can harden belief rather than soften it.

For example, when debates arise over faith and science, persuasion often fails because it ignores these psychological zones. A scientist who declares, “Religious belief is incompatible with rational thought,” instantly activates the listener’s latitude of rejection among believers. The message feels not educational but contemptuous. The same scientist might instead begin, “Both faith and science seek truth, though they ask different questions.” That framing shifts the discussion toward the latitude of acceptance, creating cognitive room for genuine dialogue.

Ethical persuasion recognizes these boundaries. It seeks proximity, not provocation. The communicator’s task is not to overthrow conviction but to build a bridge from what is known to what is possible. Manipulation, by contrast, weaponizes these boundaries. It deliberately aims for the latitude of rejection, exploiting anger, fear, and identity to provoke outrage. The result may look persuasive—crowds mobilized, posts shared, hashtags trending—but what spreads is emotion, not understanding.

The implications for modern discourse are profound. On social media, especially within algorithm-driven platforms like TikTok or X, messages that trigger contrast and boomerang effects are rewarded with visibility. Outrage becomes currency. Ethical communicators must therefore resist the temptation to escalate in tone or oversimplify in content. The goal is not to push harder but to reach closer and to frame ideas within the hearer’s capacity for reason and reflection.

Social Judgment Theory expands what Monroe’s Motivated Sequence and the Elaboration Likelihood Model begin to show: persuasion is most powerful when it honors belief rather than assaults it. To communicate ethically is to meet others where they are, trusting that understanding, not outrage, is the ground on which lasting change is built.

Section IV: The Ethics of Intention and Transparency

If the preceding theories reveal how persuasion functions, the question of why we persuade leads us into ethics. The moral center of communication lies not in form or method but in motive. Argumentation and manipulation may share the same tools—logic, emotion, and credibility—but they diverge in intent.

Argumentation is transparent. It seeks to clarify truth, even at the risk of disagreement. Manipulation is opaque. It obscures motive to secure compliance. The ethical communicator invites listeners into the reasoning process, granting them the freedom to evaluate and, if necessary, to refuse. The manipulator withholds context, conceals purpose, and treats the listener as a means to an end.

Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy captures this distinction: one must “act in such a way that you treat humanity… always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means.” Ethical persuasion honors the audience as capable of judgment. It respects their agency, trusts their discernment, and relies on the strength of truth rather than the fragility of control. Manipulation, by contrast, views listeners as instruments to be directed, data points to be optimized, or markets to be captured.

The most revealing marker of manipulation is concealment. Whether through selective framing, emotional overload, or false urgency, manipulation hides its motive. Argumentation does the opposite: it brings motive to light. To argue well is to trust that truth, once revealed, can persuade on its own merits.

Persuasion, then, is not merely a skill but a moral responsibility. To communicate ethically is to honor what makes us human: the ability to reason, to feel, and to choose freely between them. In an age saturated with messages competing for attention and allegiance, the task of the communicator is not only to be persuasive but to be honest. Language remains our most powerful instrument. It can heal, instruct, and inspire, but only when used with integrity can it fulfill its highest purpose: not to win, but to awaken.

In the end, the difference between persuasion and manipulation may not be so different from that childhood debate over the orange and red popsicles. I wanted my cousin to see things my way, but the best arguments were never the loudest; they were the ones that left room for him to decide for himself. Real persuasion still works that way. It trusts that others are capable of thought, taste, and choice. Whether we are children trading popsicles or adults trading ideas, the goal is the same: to reach understanding, not to win.

Read more by Jill Szoo Wilson on Substack.

Fear, Authority, and the Return of Choice

The AWARE Framework

Acknowledge

Wait

Allow

Repeat

Engage

What This Means for Leaders

Afterword

Further Reading

Further Reading

Further Reading

Connecting Creative and Analytical Skills

Translating Performance into Professional Presence

Adapting Across Roles and Redefining Success

Identifying Your Talent Clusters: A Reflective Guide

1. Trace your through-lines.

2. Name your complementary skills.

3. Observe your patterns of satisfaction.

4. Reframe your so-called detours.

5. Articulate your emerging cluster.

Get Curious!

Further Reading

Time-Focused Listening (Chronemic Listening)

Task-Focused Listening (Action-Oriented Listening)

Relational Listening (People-Oriented Listening)

Analytical Listening (Content-Oriented Listening)

Conclusion

Further Reading

Surface-Level Familiarity

Apathy or Adaptation?

What Schools Aren’t Teaching

A Creative Way In

The Urgency of AI Awareness

Prologue

The Human Impulse to Persuade

Section I: Persuasion as Co-Authorship — Monroe’s Motivated Sequence

Section II: The Elaboration Likelihood Model — Depth vs. Deception

Section III: Social Judgment Theory — The Battleground of Belief

Section IV: The Ethics of Intention and Transparency