Driven, consciously or unconsciously, by [folk? incomplete? provisional?] causal models. Interlocutors can compare models, draw out implications, find points of dissonance, integrate models, etc.
Experiential focus. Feelings-driven communication can be rendered intelligible in a gears-frame, but the map is not the territory. There’s a way of making sense of it that’s necessarily experiential rather than about explicit, communicable knowledge.
Frames of Power and Negotiation
…the conversation is not about sharing models, and it’s not about understanding feelings. It’s not even necessarily about “what’s best for the company.”
Their conversation is a negotiation. For Erica and Frank, most of what’s at stake are their own financial interests, and their social status within the company.
The discussion is a chess board. Financial models, worker morale, and explicit verbal arguments are more like game pieces than anything to be taken at face value.
This might be fully transparent to both Erica and Frank (such that neither even considers the other deceptive). Or, they might both earnestly believe what they’re saying – but nonetheless, if you try to interpret the conversation as a practical decision about what’s best for the company, you’ll come away confused.