Have you ever walked away from a conversation feeling like you did all the work? Maybe you asked all the questions while the other person did all the talking. Or maybe you shared plenty and got very little back.
According to communication expert and life coach Hailey Magee, this experience can reveal a common disconnect between two different communication styles: “volunteers” vs. “invite-onlies”. Left unaddressed, that contrast may quietly harm relationships in the long term.
“Mismatches in communication style can create hurt feelings and painful misunderstandings in our relationships,” Magee told HuffPost. “When someone communicates in a different style, we’re likely to interpret their communication negatively – when in fact, they’re simply showing care, curiosity or resonance in a different way.”
Having language for these differences and discussing them openly helps keep these misunderstandings and resentments from festering. Below, Magee breaks down the difference between volunteers and invite-onlies, and how to navigate interactions where these styles clash.
What is a “volunteer” and what is an “invite-only”?
“Volunteers share information about themselves without having to be asked first,” Magee said, noting that they are comfortable starting conversations about their experiences. “Volunteers may feel that asking personal questions is ‘invasive’ or ‘prying,’ so they trust that others will volunteer information about themselves when they’re ready to.”
Meanwhile, “invite-onlies” only feel comfortable sharing information or stories about themselves after they’ve been asked a question.
“They ask others questions to convey that they care about their experiences,” Magee explained. “Invite-onlies may feel that initiating a conversation about themselves is ‘self-centered’ or ‘imposing on the other,’ so they trust that if others want to hear about their lives, they’ll ask.”
Both approaches can genuinely add value to conversations and relationships. As Magee noted in a viral video on her Instagram, there are pros and cons to each.
With volunteers, the benefit is that they keep the conversation moving forward by adding new information and fostering connection because they are “open books.” They also don’t ask people questions that could feel invasive because they trust others will share when they’re comfortable and ready.
“Invite-onlies benefit conversations by being curious, asking questions that help others feel seen and being good listeners,” Magee noted. “Because they trust that others will ask if they care to hear from them, they don’t volunteer information about themselves at length in ways that other people may experience as a monologue.”
LeoPatrizi via Getty Images
But with those benefits come potential problems, particularly if these two kinds of communicators interact with each other.
Magee explained that volunteers may find invite-onlies “guarded, boring or lacking in vulnerability” because they interpret this lack of sharing as a choice to keep them at arm’s length.
“Volunteers may feel that asking others questions is a form of unnecessary emotional labour that could be avoided if only invite-onlies shared freely,” she added. “Meanwhile, invite-onlies may find volunteers self-centred and uncurious.”
Basically, invite-only communicators see showing curiosity as a way to show care, so they can interpret the lack of questions from volunteers as disinterest in their experience.
“Invite-onlies may feel like sharing – without first knowing that the other person wants to hear – is intimidating, a feeling that could be avoided if only volunteers asked questions,” Magee said.
How can volunteers and invite-onlies interact better?
Neither communication style is inherently “right” or “wrong,” but these conflicting styles can lead to misunderstandings.
As an invite-only, Magee recalled spending years convinced her volunteer friends were self-centred and didn’t care about her because they never asked her questions the way she asked them.
Feeling hurt and angry, she finally decided to get vulnerable and tell them how she felt about their conversations, and they were surprised and horrified.
They had assumed she wasn’t interested in closeness because she seemed guarded and never volunteered anything about herself.
“Needless to say, I was shocked,” Magee said. “Both of us were telling ourselves a story about what the other person’s communication style meant, and our stories were wrong.”
Ultimately, they realised they did care about each other, but they just showed it differently. For Magee, it was by asking questions, and for her friends, it was by opening up.
“Everyone would benefit from discussing their communication styles with their friends, family members, partners and colleagues,” Magee said. “Unaddressed mismatches in style can lead to resentment and incorrect assumptions.”
“By discussing these differences directly, you can both understand why the other communicates the way they do – and collaboratively troubleshoot how to communicate in a way that meets both of your needs,” she added.
Initiating these kinds of conversations can feel daunting, but Magee wrote some scripts for kicking things off.
For a volunteer talking to an invite-only, she suggested saying something like, “Hey! Lately I’ve been feeling like our conversations are imbalanced. I feel sad when I open up about myself, but you don’t do the same. Can we talk about how I can help you feel more comfortable to share?”
And for an invite-only talking to a volunteer, you might open with the same line about feeling imbalanced and then add, “I feel hurt when you share about yourself but don’t really ask about me. Can we talk about how to find more balance?”
Unfortunately, people won’t always respond to you expressing a need in the way you wish they would, but you can still learn from these discussions. You might even realise your earlier assumptions that someone is guarded, passive-aggressive, self-centred or uninterested in you were actually true.
Whatever response you get, you can feel confident moving forward knowing you’re operating off real communication rather than initial assumptions.
