❤ ENGLISH
Thoughts, observations and practical notes on English & communication.
 There is a lot of talk in the public space about setting boundaries. We hear that we need to protect ourselves, be clear, send the right signals. All true, in theory. In practice, it’s much harder. First, you need to understand the boundary yourself. Second, and this is where most people stumble, you need to communicate it efficiently. This is where language comes in. And this is a skill almost all of us can work on. What I keep noticing is this. When people try to set a boundary, their language often flips into one of two extremes. Problem 1: clarity turns into harshness When the boundary is new or emotionally loaded, the brain goes into protection mode. The result is language that is defensive, abrupt, sometimes even crude. Yes, it does set a boundary. But it comes at a serious relational cost. Example: boundary set, communication damaged I’m not doing this. Don’t ask me again. This is clear. The boundary exists. But the message underneath is: go away. It shuts the door not only on the request, but often on the relationship.This kind of language may feel powerful in the moment, but it creates unnecessary friction and long-term damage. Problem 2: politeness that dissolves the boundary After being told they sound harsh or aggressive, people often swing to the other extreme. They soften so much that the boundary becomes leaky. Example: politeness weakening the boundary I’d really love to help, and I feel bad saying this, but I’ve been very busy lately and I have a lot on my plate, so maybe I won’t be able to do it right now. This sounds kind. It sounds thoughtful. But it also sounds negotiable. The listener hears: try again. Push a bit. What actually works: kind and immovable A healthy boundary is not aggressive, and it’s not apologetic either. My working definition is simple: One polite line and one firm line. Courtesy sets the tone. The boundary sets the structure. Example: politeness protecting the boundary Thanks for asking. I won’t be able to take this on right now. I appreciate the message. I respond to work matters during working hours. These sentences are not cold. They are not crude. And they are not leaky. They acknowledge the other person and remain immovable.  I sometimes listen to John Delony. He’s a counsellor who talks a lot about emotional health, boundaries, and relationships. To be honest, I can’t listen to too much of it. Other people’s problems and behaviours can feel overwhelming, and I already have quite enough on my own plate. But I listened to a few episodes. And one thing kept coming back. He says: behaviour is a language. The first time I heard it, it caught my attention immediately, probably because it contains the word language. The second and third time, it stuck with me. So I started asking myself: what does that actually mean? If behaviour is a language, is it worth pausing for a moment and asking an uncomfortable question?: What does my behaviour say before I say anything at all? We are always communicating, even when we’re silent.
And very often, behaviour carries a message that sits underneath the words. If you know how to look at it, a lot of things suddenly fall into place. A few examples that stayed with me:
It’s lack of ownership or lack of clarity. At some point I thought: all right, this makes sense, but is there a way to work with this that is teachable, usable, and sharp, without turning it into therapy? That’s how I came across the SHELF framework. What I like about it is that it helps you read behaviour as language without over-interpreting it. It keeps things grounded, operational, and practical. When I started applying it to my own situations, I realised something interesting. For me, the hardest part is eliminating excuses. And I have a strong feeling I’m not the only one who struggles with that. I want to work with this framework more, first of all for myself. But I also see real value in bringing it into my work with clients. Not in an emotional way. In an operational one. If you feel that this kind of lens, reading behaviour as language, would be useful for you, we can absolutely incorporate it into our sessions. Just mention it in class.  I have a student I’ve been cooperating with for quite some time. Very early on, I noticed something striking about his communication. Not eloquence. Not fluency. Responsiveness. I tend to pick up on these things quickly. And yes, I do compare. Once you’ve worked with someone who is genuinely responsive, the difference becomes impossible to ignore. Responsiveness is one of those skills that quietly separates people who feel safe and competent to work with from those who create friction, uncertainty, and mental noise. Often without realizing it. The good news? This is not a talent - well, it can be but it's also a trainable behaviour. Why responsiveness matters more than we think1. It reduces uncertainty instantly A responsive person closes open loops. Even a brief acknowledgment stops the mind from wandering. Silence invites assumptions; responsiveness shuts them down. 2. It creates a sense of being cared for You don’t feel ignored, sidelined, or forgotten. You feel seen. That emotional effect is disproportionate to the effort involved. 3. It signals competence and control Responsiveness tells the other person: I’m on top of this. Not necessarily done but managed. People trust management before they trust outcomes. 4. It protects the relationship Many conflicts don’t start with disagreement. They start with delays, non-responses, or vague reactions. Responsiveness prevents escalation before it begins. 5. It keeps momentum alive Projects, decisions, and cooperation slow down dramatically when responses lag. Responsive communicators keep things moving without pushing. Responsiveness is not about replying fast. It’s about replying clearly enough and early enough to reduce uncertainty. You can be responsive without being constantly available. How to build responsiveness (even if it’s not natural)1. Separate acknowledgment from solution You don’t need answers immediately. You need acknowledgment immediately. “Got this. I’ll come back by tomorrow.” works wonders. 2. Make timing explicit Silence is the enemy. Timeframes are your shield. If you can’t act now, say when you will. 3. Close loops deliberately If something is finished, say it’s finished. If it’s pending, name what’s pending. Don’t leave others guessing. 4. Reduce vagueness in replies Replace:
This isn’t about being nice. It’s about being reliable. That mindset shift changes behaviour fast. THE CLOSING NOTEResponsiveness is one of the fastest ways to:
You need better timing, clearer signals, and fewer unanswered questions. That’s a skill worth honing.
INKA is one of my most popular courses because it ticks the main boxes.
First of all, it helps you stay in regular contact with the language; it’s intensive, but it doesn’t take much time. You get the feeling that you’re keeping your communication alive, learning something new, and staying consistent; without overwhelming yourself. And in a busy schedule, that matters. INKA was designed for busy professionals who still want to develop, but have limited time and limited mental capacity; they can’t always commit to something heavier. INKA is intensive, but in a caffeine-free way. Over time, I noticed something important; people often appreciate it when I introduce a bit more structure, insight, or direction. Sometimes they don’t have the energy, ideas, or clarity to bring something to the session themselves; and that’s perfectly normal. That’s why INKA has evolved. INKA Flow focuses on conversation and feedback; it’s ideal if you want to bring your own topics, talk things through, and receive a short, focused piece of guidance at the end of each session. INKA Focus is more deliberate, but still light; each session revolves around one micro-insight only. It gives you something concrete to reflect on and a small follow-up task; just enough self-digging to move things forward without overload. This is the key difference between the two. In some cases, it’s possible to combine both; but that’s something we’d need to discuss individually. |
