According to Forbes, Majeed Javdani of Mercator Group argues that what we call communication is actually a mechanical process he terms “response engineering.” Rather than being about self-expression or charisma, communication should be treated as a structured system designed to provoke specific reactions. The approach begins not with what you want to say, but with what response you want to elicit from your receiver. Javdani compares it to game design mechanics where actions lead to predictable outcomes based on defined rules. This framework applies across negotiations, leadership, and public administration, treating communication as strategic input into human cognitive systems rather than mere dialogue.
Engineering Over Expression
Here’s the thing—this completely flips how most people approach communication. We’re taught to “express ourselves clearly” or “be persuasive.” But Javdani’s saying that’s backwards. You start with the end result you want—the specific thought, decision, or action—and work backward to design the communication that will trigger it.
Think about that for a second. It means your words aren’t really about you at all. They’re inputs into someone else’s cognitive system. And just like an engineer needs to understand materials before building a bridge, you need to understand the person’s mental architecture before crafting your message.
Beyond Direct Dialogue
What’s really interesting is how this expands what counts as communication. It’s not just conversations. A policy announcement, a public statement, even something you do that someone observes from afar—all of it becomes communication if it’s designed to trigger a response.
Basically, communication becomes signal deployment rather than just interaction. Your words and actions navigate through social space, sometimes indirectly, to achieve their purpose. This is where it gets architectural—you’re designing environments that prompt specific behaviors.
Precision Over Persuasion
So what does this mean practically? In negotiations, instead of focusing on making your position sound convincing, you’d first map the other party’s internal logic. What do they consider threats versus rewards? What are their unspoken assumptions?
In leadership, directives become levers rather than orders. The effectiveness depends on how the receiver interprets not just the content but the credibility, tone, and context. A leader using this approach isn’t asserting authority—they’re shaping behavior through carefully tuned influence.
The Human Mechanism
Now, does this feel a bit… cold? Treating people like systems to be engineered? Javdani argues it actually acknowledges human complexity rather than eliminating it. We’re complicated cognitive creatures with predictable patterns if you know how to read them.
And in a world drowning in noise, maybe precision really is the most powerful form of influence left. When everyone’s shouting to be heard, the person who understands exactly which signals will trigger which responses might just get what they want. Whether that’s comforting or concerning… well, that’s the real question, isn’t it?
