The recognition didn’t come.

And now you have to walk back in tomorrow and do the work anyway.

That’s not a small thing.

How you carry it. How you show up. How you treat the people around you.

What you do with that is the part that belongs to you.

Everything else was someone else’s decision.

Calyn Chambers
writing in Substack Notes

When recognition is absent and when professionalism is still required regardless of the impact, that can be a difficult emotional and psychological “ask” and tall task.

“That’s not a small thing.”

It’s a shared experience for many people and a heavy weight to carry.

“There’s a loneliness that comes with this that is often hard to name. The loneliness that arrives when you extended something genuine: your effort, your care, a small thing you did because you thought it would matter to someone and it passed without acknowledgment,” says Calyn Chambers, the writer and publisher of the STEADY newsletter on Substack.

“We have all been there,” she adds. “It doesn’t have to be a major professional moment. Sometimes, it’s the presentation nobody acknowledged, the contribution that went uncredited. Sometimes, it’s quieter and more personal than that. And somehow, the quiet ones land just as hard.”

Chambers has learned something valuable and hurtful in those times.

What people might not notice — or if they do — may not understand, is something that could possibly lighten their emotional and psychological burden.

She elaborates.

“The people who feel nothing when recognition doesn’t come have usually already checked out. The ones who feel it are still there. Still invested,” Chambers says. “That matters more than we realize.”

She speaks to how someone can experience the emotion and then, the feelings and decide and commit to travel the path forward.

“What I’ve noticed is that we don’t move through it by overriding the feeling or telling ourselves it shouldn’t matter. We feel it, we name it honestly and then we make a decision about what we’re going to carry forward and what we’re going to leave there,” Chambers asserts.

“Not because the feeling isn’t real. Because, letting it change how we show up tomorrow is the only part of this that actually costs us something. All you hold onto is you: What you gave, how you showed up. Nobody’s decision changes that.”

She adds that she understands the reality of how we normally process thoughts by ruminating about our disappointing, discouraging or upsetting experiences

“However, knowing that doesn’t always stop the mind from looking. It keeps returning to the moment looking for a resolution that was never going to come from outside you anyway,” Chambers says.

Her observation and gut instinct is that certain people master saying “when” at the right time.

“The people who learn to recognize it early and come back to what’s in front of them are the ones who keep the day,” Chambers says. “And more than that, they keep themselves. They don’t let something outside their control take what was never anyone else’s to take.”

Getting to that mindset can be challenging, yet not impossible.

“The gap between knowing you have agency and being able to access it when the feeling is still fresh is real,” Chambers says.

She offers words that could prove encouraging for some people.

She knows what can make it possible and more likely.

“The capacity only gets there one way — built in smaller moments, before you need it, until the response starts to become more reliable,” Chambers says..

“What that looks like in practice is less dramatic than people expect: The meeting that didn’t go your way. The afternoon someone else got the credit for something you contributed. Those moments are where it gets built. Not in the big one. In the dozens of smaller ones that felt low stakes enough to practice in.”

There is a change, a transformation, that takes place.

“In those moments, what happens is narrow: not suppressing the feeling, giving your attention something real to land on instead of following the loop,” Chambers says, such as, “The person in front of you. The task in your hands. What you want to be able to say about how you showed up by the end of the day.”

She concluded her Substack Notes post with a reminder, while maybe painful, could be interpreted as freeing: “Everything else was someone else’s decision.”

Some experiences are outside our locus of control and that requires an acceptance that can be difficult or feel impossible.

“Most of what stays with you after unrecognized work, doesn’t come from the original decision someone made. It comes from the story that runs after it,” Chambers says.

“What this means about your value. What it says about whether to keep going. Whether you were wrong to care as much as you did,” she details as what we may wrestle with and conclude.

Chambers explains why this is valuable and maybe, imperative to learn and remember.

She doesn’t believe that’s cynicism or putting a feel-good spin on hardship.

“That’s just a more honest accounting of what recognition actually is and where it comes from,” Chambers explains.

“Acceptance isn’t ‘it doesn’t matter’ or ‘I shouldn’t have expected more,’” she adds.

“It’s being honest about what was ever in your hands and what wasn’t. The work was yours. The decision someone else made about whether to acknowledge it was never yours to control. Placing your energy only where it can actually move something isn’t resignation. It’s precision.”

Share

Subscribe for free (or paid). Communication Intelligence is a publication of interviews, analysis, insights and special contributions. In addition to the newsletter, CI offers professional writing and consulting services.

Subscribe now

To your surprise, you are sought out for your counsel. It may feel puzzling, yet maybe it shouldn’t be because, once you learn why, it will make sense.

Babak Nivi and Naval Ravikant, entrepreneurs and investors, recently discussed this topic (amongst others) on the The Naval Podcast.

“I have had a couple of people who come to me for advice through the years and they’ll literally use me as a counselor,” Ravikant said, adding, “and I’m always kind of scratching my head (as to) why.”

His curiosity was eventually satisfied.

This often lands well on an emotional and psychological level for obvious and not so-obvious reasons, depending on different people and their expertise and viewpoints, sources tell Communication Intelligence.

“A lot of advice is contaminated by the adviser’s own fears, identity, preferences or need to feel right,” says Ben Robins, at Ben Robins Coaching. "People can sense that very quickly, even if they cannot articulate it.”

He explains what that interaction often looks like.

“The conversation subtly becomes about what the adviser would do, what worked for them or the version of life they unconsciously believe is correct,” Robins says.

There are also experiences like what Navikant described above.

“The most effective conversations feel different because the other person experiences themselves more clearly inside them,” Robins explains.

That changes the comfort level and potential for the discussion.

“Psychologically, that creates safety because there is less resistance,” Robins begins to says. “People naturally defend against being controlled, judged or pushed but when someone helps you hear your own thinking more honestly, the nervous system tends to relax.”

Rod Hoevet, a clinical and forensic psychologist and an assistant professor of forensic psychology at Maryville University, is more blunt.

“First, advice never works,” he argues. “If advice was effective, there would be no counselors, psychologists, etc. Although people think they want advice, they don’t. People want to be engaged, heard and challenged.

“People want engagement, authenticity. They want to connect with someone.”

Hoevet has an observation from what Navikant said about the feedback received.

Benefit is more probable to emerge from it.

“When they lean in, he leans in and a great symbiosis happens,” Hoevet says. “That’s true intimacy and authenticity. … just true human connection. This is how true relationships happen, it’s how great therapy happens, it’s how great businesses are born and the strongest relationships and marriages are forged and sustained.”

When people seek advice, they may not always be starting from a place of the complete unknown. They can have pieces of the way forward that they seek.

There can be something else transpiring under the surface communication.

“Another part is protecting comfort, certainty, status or identity,” Robins says. “These two competing sides create that internal conflict. Good mentoring is able to help organize what is already there rather than inserting something new.”

When this happens, it leaves an impression.

It’s a difference experience, away from the norm of everyday life.

“At a deeper level, I think people rarely get spaces where they are not being managed, sold to, evaluated, reassured or unconsciously pulled toward someone else’s agenda,” Robins says.

“So when they encounter someone genuinely trying to understand rather than direct them, it stands out immediately,” he adds. “And ironically, that often creates better decisions because people are far more committed to insights they arrive at themselves than being told what to do.”

Ahram Arya, a leadership coach specializing in human design and additional tools that help leaders create, grow and make better decisions, sees Ravikant’s approach going beyond the natural.

“It’s spiritual,” he says. “This is not an approach, per se, this is an ability the best mentors simply possess. It’s a mode of consciousness where the mentor leaves and acts as a bridge in order to access the wisdom of the higher self.”

Arya briefly elaborates.

“Priests, sages, mystics and wise parents have this ability to get out of the way so that truth that needs to be heard, can come through,” he explains.

He points to the reality of how many people experience advice, especially when it doesn’t consciously or subconsciously align with their experiences and beliefs.

“Contrast that with a mentor projecting personal advice based on their own subjective or comparative experience,” Arya says.

“That cannot have the same impact emotionally, psychologically or otherwise.”

There are gains by the approach that Navikant used, for both the mentor and the person who came to them seeking insight and help.

The recipient will often get to “feel confident to be a bit vulnerable, stretch themselves and feel uncomfortable — and of course, this is where growth happens,” Hoevet says.

“The strongest, smartest and most resilient people do this all the time.”

Robins points to something that may be unexpected to learn.

The mentor or coach develops or builds on an important, valuable skill.

“It teaches restraint,” Robins says. “You realize how often the desire to help is actually the desire to reduce your own discomfort by fixing, advising, rescuing or accelerating someone toward an answer.

“It’s important to realize that people don’t always need someone to solve the problem for them. Sometimes, they just need someone capable of staying in the uncertainty long enough for the deeper answer to emerge.”

Another illuminating discovery may present itself when this happens.

Advice seekers can come to recognize what they didn’t previously notice.

“The recipient gets the unexpected, door number-three kind of feedback and these shifts can reveal blind spots and new perspectives, which send them down new roads of possibility,” Arya says.

“The mentor learns to trust the unexpected as well, to read the situation objectively, and trust that the questions given or advice earned can reveal the situation, so that the recipient can arrive at the solution on their own.”

Share

Subscribe for free (or paid for extra benefits)

Subscribe now

In addition to the newsletter, Communication Intelligence offers services to help people clearly, effectively communicate their expertise within and outside of their organization. Reach out to detail your objectives, desired outcomes and the best way to work with you in a business interaction.

Communication errors are often part ignorance and doing what has always been done and seems smart. Yet, misunderstanding how people think and what aids in comprehension, inspiration and motivation, is costly. It doesn’t have to be that way.

“In times of change, employees are overloaded with information,” Mary Lou Panzano wrote in her LinkedIn newsletter, The Prosperity Project.

She argues that volume of messaging is not doing the work leaders want, need and believe that it is and what is more effective, at the core, is clearer messaging.

Panzano, a communications executive with 35-plus years of experience in employee communications at global companies, assists leaders in guiding strategic, organizational change and she points to a habitual problem she has observed.

In her article, she talked about where organizational messaging can go off track.

“When communication becomes overly strategic, heavily layered or filled with corporate language — and Heaven forbid, an alphabet soup of acronyms — employees are left trying to interpret what the change actually means for them.

“That uncertainty slows momentum, weakens trust and increases fatigue.”

As for the reason for this gap between what is being done and what is needed, she explains leadership reality and default behavior.

“Strategy and context need to be shared, no question. However, in my experience, I have found that leaders can get bogged down in long-winded, complicated communications that are laden with corporate speak,” Panzano says.

“For example, ‘We are initiating this program to simplify complexities, reduce redundancies and increase effectiveness, to ensure alignment with the implementation of our strategic imperatives.”

She recognizes that it’s a problem, yet communicators often aren’t recognizing it.

There’s a deeper issue: emotional, psychological and relational. It’s an important one.

“Complicated messages can also make employees feel disrespected, as if their needs have not been considered,” Panzano warns. “It can also seem as though the leader is trying to mask something by filling white space with text instead of simply stating what is happening. That erodes trust.”

She has a recommendation as a proposed solution.

“Why not say, ‘We’re starting this plan to make things easier, cut out extra work and help everyone do a better job so we can reach our goals.’ That, I can understand and relate to,” Panzano says.

Observable experience shows that organizations may not always be communicating like humans to their fellow humans, as much as they would like to do such and are presuming. There are roots as to why this may be taking place.

“First, leaders and line managers are under extraordinary pressure to perform in what is arguably one of the most dynamic, unpredictable and rapidly-changing business and economic environments we’ve seen in our lifetimes.

“It takes time, thought and energy to pause to consider what your employees’ needs are, not only what they need to know to do their jobs in support of company goals but what their needs are as people.”

There is the human, full-life variable as well.

Technology has clearly impacted how well or not we interact as human beings.

“Second, leaders are increasingly replacing human beings with robots, machines, bots, AI agents and non-human workers,” Panzano says. “Those types of workers do not bring emotions, values, lived experiences and the need for psychological safety and human connection to the workplace. Human beings do.”

She goes deeper to explain how this is interconnected with communications.

“Companies don’t run themselves; people run them. Leaders who undervalue and avoid human connection, do not care about their employees’ needs or make little effort relate to them not only as workers, but as people, will find it difficult to communicate in a way that is understandable, builds trust or engenders buy-in,” Panzano explains.

“These factors all affect productivity and profitability.”

An abundance of people are communicating in the world and in organizations, yet authority is not making the time to do what else is need for effective communication.

“Employees know more than their leaders often give them credit for. They are on the front lines, interacting with customers, doing research, involved in manufacturing or product development and a host of other activities,” she adds.

“If something isn’t working, employees know. If there’s an opportunity to take advantage of, employees know. Leaders who avoid spending time listening to and engaging with their employees miss the opportunity to gain insight and perspectives they may not otherwise hear.”

Again, it goes to the humanness of the relationship.

“Employees want to be acknowledged and heard and when they aren’t, they can become indifferent and often actively disengage,” Panzano explains.

There is an approach to prevent, mitigate or fix it.

She wrote in her LinkedIn newsletter article about the value of clearly communicating the “why” behind transition within an organization.

“Because when people understand the purpose behind the change, they are far more likely to support the path forward,” she said.

She explains why that is the natural byproduct.

“People are looking for meaning and context when they first learn about a change,” Panzano says. “Most people resist change. Our brains prefer predictability and familiarity, while change signals uncertainty and potential danger ahead.”

This presents a challenge to communicators.

“Without the rationale behind the change and a full understanding of what it means for employees, what problem it solves or opportunity it presents, how it will impact them and a clear vision of what the future will look and feel like after the change, employees will be skeptical or even fearful,” Panzano details.

The outcome is unlikely to please organizational executives.

“Leaders will be hard-pressed to gain buy-in and support from employees who are experiencing those emotions,” she warns.

The improvement and remedy is available and not being regularly applied.

“Communicating clearly and simply about what the change is, why it is necessary, how it will affect employees and what will be different when the change takes effect will reduce resistance and help garner support more quickly and effectively,” Panzano says.

The formula is straightforward, as she suggested in her article.

It’s simple, yet proves difficult to remember and apply. However, there is available interaction effectiveness and value within it.

“The simplicity of the question is what makes it challenging for communicators,” Panzano asserts. “Simplifying messages is hard work; it takes time, thought and a deep understanding and appreciation of your audience.”

It’s smart to remember, she adds, that assumptive conclusions come with risk.

“Just because a message is released, it doesn’t mean it is well-understood, if it is read at all,” Panzano says. And, she adds, “That’s not communication.”

She offers what qualifies.

“True communication happens when a message is delivered, received, understood, internalized and acted upon,” Panzano says. “The goal of any communication is to get your audience to understand and engage with it as you or the company intends.

A simple habit and discipline can make a significant difference.

“Whether you are a leader or communications professional, pausing long enough to consider how the message can be more clear, concise and relatable for your audience is worth the time.”

Because, as she explains, “The alternative is to fix the problems that will inevitably arise from communications that weren’t.”

Share

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits).

Communication Intelligence is an interview-driven publication of analysis and ideas that includes semi-regular insights-and-advisory leader contributions.

Subscribe now

In addition to the newsletter, Communication Intelligence offers services to help people clearly, effectively communicate their expertise within and outside of their organization. Reach out to detail your objectives, desired outcomes and the best way to work with you in a business interaction.

by Ann Claire Pahlavi
Strategic Communications and Public Relations Advisor
at Ann Claire Media

May 17, 2026

A founder I work with walked into a Series B investor meeting fully prepared. He knew the numbers and rehearsed the narrative. The first question was routine, the second one was harder. It was a pointed challenge. Then, midway through his answer, unexpected to him, his composure broke.

His cadence accelerated and began answering before the investor finished speaking. He overly repeated key points. What happened? Precision had been surrender and urgency took over, which was the exact antithesis of what the situation required.

His intelligence certainly hadn’t changed in that room, yet his ability to hold it together under scrutiny did. That’s not a communication issue. It’s an architecture problem, a gap in internal design and I’ll tell you what that means.

What holds communication together under pressure isn’t confidence or preparation alone. It is a deliberately built internal structure, four components that, under pressure, either hold or give way:

• Physiology: Managing your body’s baseline response to a perceived threat before it derails your delivery

• Values: Anchoring to prevent a slide into defensive posturing

• Judgment: Retaining the cognitive clarity needed to think and process in real time

• Language: Deploying precise, controlled expression when it matters most

This isn’t only a boardroom problem. The same pattern plays out in a performance review that starts well and ends defensively, in a team meeting where a manager loses their footing when challenged, in a job interview where someone who prepared thoroughly couldn’t access what they knew when it mattered.

Modern leadership culture, I argue, is heavily over-indexed on communication skills. Executives are taught presentation tactics, persuasion frameworks and confidence strategies and a lot of that is useful. Most of it is incomplete.

Why, though? Communication rarely collapses from lack of information. It does so when the underlying foundation supporting those four components becomes unstable under pressure.

A simple practice can positively shift this before a high-stakes exchange.

It begins with one question: What am I actually afraid of losing in this conversation?

Naming the threat, real or perceived, whether it be losing credibility, losing control of the narrative, being seen as uncertain, can aid in disarming it. You can’t regulate what you haven’t identified.

Once you have named it, the rest of the process follows: take three slow breaths, name your values quietly to yourself and remind yourself what you are there to do.

What sounds like a small ritual is actually an act of internal design. It primes the foundation before pressure arrives, rather than trying to rebuild it after the fact.

The good news is that this foundation can be built. Composure under scrutiny, clarity under pressure and the ability to stay grounded when challenged are not fixed personality traits.

They are learnable, trainable skills and more accessible than most people assume.

Share Communication Intelligence

Three Signals to Learn and Remember

Temporal compression. Answers get shorter and faster and not because the situation calls for brevity but because the nervous system is prioritizing speed over precision.

A CFO enters a difficult board conversation fully prepared. By the third question, she is answering before it’s finished. Key points repeated. She sounds less certain the harder she tries to sound more certain. Her intelligence is still intact. Her architecture is not.

The corrective is physiological before it is cognitive.

When pressure activates the body’s threat response, which is what high-stakes situations reliably trigger , it narrows cognitive bandwidth and accelerates verbal output.

The 4-7-8 breathing pattern: inhale for four counts, hold for seven, exhale for eight, directly counters this activation. Done once before a high-stakes exchange, it measurably reduces the arousal that drives compression.

The deeper installation is quieter: what effective leaders develop is a settled internal confidence that doesn’t need the conversation to resolve quickly. A pause becomes a strategic instrument because the leader who can hold silence in the room is almost always the one with the most grounded authority in it.

Tonal shift. Tone hardens or over-softens and usually, maybe to your surprise, outside the leader’s own awareness. A seasoned executive enters a media interview composed. As questions become adversarial, her tone shifts and she becomes slightly clipped, slightly over-controlled.

Trust thins, not because of what she said but because the structure behind her words began showing stress. Tonal shift lives below the level of conscious choice.

The voice hardens before the mind notices.

The most durable protection is not a technique applied in the moment. It is the presence of a strong, internal foundation built before you enter the room: a clear sense of values, purpose and what you are not willing to compromise.

When that internal design is intact, external pressure has nowhere to take hold. What most leaders misread as adversarial pressure is actually an opportunity to re-ground your narrative and respond with deliberate assertion, instead of reactive defense.

Structural drift. Under pressure, points that would normally land with precision begin to circle. A founder pitching a strategic pivot keeps returning to the same justification, each time from a slightly different angle.

The idea is defensible. The repetition signals doubt.

State your intention first, then build the case beneath it. The version I teach adds one step at the front: values.

Before your bottom line, name what principle you’re drawing from and why this exchange matters. The full structure runs: values, bottom line, why it matters, two grounding examples, a specific request and a timeline.

Two examples rather than one, because a single example feels anecdotal and two creates pattern. Leaders who use this structure are consistently perceived as more decisive and more trustworthy and not because the content changed but because the design of how it was delivered did.

Reframe your thinking from performance to foundation. It will benefit you.

These three signals — compression, tonal shift and drift — are simply physiological responses to perceived threat. Every person who has felt their thinking narrow under scrutiny or their voice harden in a difficult room, has experienced it.

The work of addressing them is not about becoming a more polished communicator. It is about becoming a more grounded one.

The founder in that investor meeting eventually did this work and the next time a hard question landed, he paused, he took a breath and he answered from somewhere steadier inside himself. The result was no accident. The investor noticed and not because his delivery had changed but because something beneath it had.

Share

Ann Claire Pahlavi works with founders, executives, investors and public figures on the architecture of high-stakes communication. Her work is grounded in the intersection of autonomic nervous system regulation, values-based leadership and high-stakes performance. EthosOS is her proprietary installation for leaders who need their communication to hold under pressure.

Subscribe now

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits)

Giving little-to-no attention and care to the people around you at work may result in unexpected difficulty when it comes to pursuing upward mobility and after advancement.

In his piece — Your Colleagues Are Crucial to Your Promotion — for Fast Company, Michel Koopman, the founder and CEO at CxO Coaching, a firm for executives and leaders, communicated about a common, costly ignorance and error.

“During executive coaching engagements, I often find leaders realize that they need to start paying attention to their cross-functional relationships,” he wrote.

Koopman additionally mentioned his counsel to them, as well as to readers.

“Determine if your interactions are purely transactional or if you’ve built actual rapport,” he wrote.

Co-workers may see and feel it differently than assumed. It’s beneficial to learn now.

“People begin to realize the value of this when they understand that leadership is not just about performance but about followership,” Koopman tells Communication Intelligence. “At some point in your career, the people sitting around the table with you today may end up reporting to you tomorrow. If those relationships were purely transactional, people will remember that.”

He points to what is the norm.

“Many professionals unintentionally approach peer relationships with an agenda in mind. They offer support because they want alignment, resources, visibility or eventual advancement in return,” Koopman says.

“But people can feel the difference between someone who is genuinely invested in their success and someone who is simply managing optics.”

There are those professionals who stand out differently and benefit for it.

“The leaders who rise successfully are usually the ones who make others feel supported, respected and elevated, long before there is anything to gain from it,” Koopman says he has regularly observed.

“When your colleagues trust that your intentions are not (only) self-serving, they become far more willing to advocate for you, collaborate with you and ultimately follow you.”

It shouldn’t be a surprise that this how people perceive, feel and respond. Smart professionals recognize this reality and apply themselves relationally and strategically.

“They realize these relationships are not ‘soft skills,’ but a leadership infrastructure that will serve everyone involved,” Koopman says.

Connection, trust and relationship quality matter and it’s vital to gauge the status of it.

Most leaders may not — or are likely not — thinking about building trust and healthy work relationships in a transactional environment, yet if they paused and thought about it, the value would be recognized.

“I think the mistake people make is treating rapport as something separate from work, when in reality it’s built through the way you work every day,” Koopman tells CI.

He elaborates to further explain:

“A transactional mindset naturally focuses on the short-term exchange and thinking ‘what do I need from this person right now?’” Koopman says.

“On the other hand, a long-term mindset focuses on becoming valuable to others, regardless of the immediate return. That’s what creates the strongest professional capital over time.”

Thinking now about what will be needed, if not soon, then eventually, is wise and maybe not sufficiently and wisely considered by everyone.

“You cannot suddenly manufacture or will into existence rapport at a critical moment when you need support for a promotion, a project or a difficult decision,” he stresses. “The relationship equity has either been built already or it hasn’t.”

Knowing this is the way of humans, it brings Koopman to a logical conclusion.

“That’s why authentic rapport has to become part of how you consistently operate,” he advises. “It’s not a tactic you deploy only when needed.”

Developing this habit can start with simple new thinking and action.

“First of all, I would stop competing with colleagues internally as a primary strategy for advancement,” Koopman says.

“Too many professionals believe that standing out means outshining the people around them, when, in reality, the leaders who create the most long-term momentum are often the ones who elevate others, not diminish them.”

He goes deeper to discuss what won’t be experienced and remembered well.

“One of the biggest mindset shifts is realizing that leadership is not about climbing over people, it’s about pulling people further as you go,” Koopman explains.

“You can still challenge ideas, hold high standards and drive accountability but the best leaders create an environment where the people around them become more successful because they were there.”

This positively moves the needle in people’s lives and makes a strong impression.

“Professionally, people remember how you made them feel during stressful projects, difficult conversations and moments where credit or visibility were on the line,” Koopman argues.

“If your colleagues consistently experience you as someone who helps them succeed, rather than someone playing internal politics, over time, your reputation compounds in a very powerful way.”

Share

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits).

Communication Intelligence is an interview-driven publication of analysis and ideas that includes semi-regular insights-and-advisory leader contributions.

Subscribe now

In addition to the newsletter, Communication Intelligence offers services to help people clearly, effectively communicate their expertise within and outside of their organization. Reach out to detail your objectives, desired outcomes and the best way to work with you in a business interaction.

As humans, we are naturally good at making associations to problems and adjusting our choices, yet what about when those conclusions aren’t always accurate and they limit us and we don’t realize it.

Ramiro Castano — a therapist, relationship expert and emotional safety specialist at Find Your Relationship Counseling, proposed a question about it in a conversation we were having recently.

He rhetorically questioned whether or not what those assumptions as always true, cause-and-effect, negative associations are, in reality, legitimate life lessons “that best serve us moving forward?”

He points to the root cause of us sometimes allowing ourselves to be deceived.

“Specifically, awareness that our brain isn’t trying to find the truth after a painful experience,” Castano explains. “It’s trying to protect us from future pain as quickly as possible. That’s its job and it’s very good at it.”

That protection assistance, however, sometimes is accompanied by a downside.

“The problem is that speed and accuracy rarely go together,” Castano adds.

Learning, grasping and remembering this can be beneficial.

“Once someone understands that their brain is wired to do this — not because something is wrong with them but because that’s how we’re all built — they can start to create a small-but-important gap between the experience and the conclusion,” Castano explains. “That gap is where the real examination happens.”

He uses an example to elaborate.

“If someone concludes after a bad car accident that they’ll never drive in the left lane again, I want them to play that out concretely,” Castano begins. “What happens when the car ahead is crawling and the only way around is the left lane? What happens when they’re late and the left lane is the fastest option?

“If the conclusion creates new problems, that’s important information.”

At this point, a pivot could be more helpful to thinking and decision-making.

“A better conclusion might be something different or being, more specific,” Castano asserts.” For instance, under what exact conditions does the left lane feel genuinely dangerous to me and can I manage that without making a rule that eventually works against me?”

He briefly explains why this is useful and how it can open up our thinking for a life that is still safe, yet stronger.

Developing that cognitive pathway to create a reliable emotional, psychological improvement becomes an important effort and process.

”The practice I’d recommend is simple to describe and genuinely difficult to do consistently,” Castano admits. “Question every conclusion, including your own, before accepting it.’

He elaborates to explain his reasoning and recommendation.

He provides a way to approach this challenge.

“Generate as many plausible, alternative explanations as you can. Then, begin eliminating them one by one, based on actual evidence, rather than feeling,” Castano advises. “Only when you’ve genuinely exhausted the alternatives and one explanation remains standing, should you allow yourself a definitive conclusion.”

Yet, What If?

Castano has an answer if there is either remaining confusion or debate.

“And if alternatives still exist because you can’t honestly rule them out, then the correct answer is ‘I don’t know yet,’” he responds. “Not as a cop-out but as an accurate reflection of where you actually are.”

It matters, he insists.

“This is especially important when it comes to interpreting other people’s behavior, which is where most of us are the least accurate and the most certain,” Castano argues.

“We assign motives, draw conclusions and build entire narratives about why someone did what they did, usually within seconds, usually without questioning any of it.”

A ability and willingness to stop and question the self-talk is valuable.

“But, it’s one of the most useful things a person can train themselves to do.”

The sequence, he says, matters significantly.

“It’s making ‘I don’t know’ the default response, rather than the last resort and not allowing any conclusion, yours or someone else’s, to settle into belief without first being questioned,” Castano says.

Share

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits)

Subscribe now

by David Grossman
Founder and CEO at The Grossman Group

May 11, 2026

The leadership problem that most companies aren’t paying attention to isn’t the bad leader. They’re easy to spot. People complain about them, the system catches up and they get coached or moved.

The one to worry about is the leader playing by the old rules: the competent manager who hits the numbers, runs a decent meeting, doesn’t generate complaints.

Solid.

The Grossman Group partnered with The Harris Poll to ask 2,206 employed Americans to rate their leaders. The results landed in three buckets:

• 16% — outdated, old-style leaders with a command-and-control type approach

• 30% — exceptional

• 54% — rated as “good” — the largest group by a wide margin

That last group is where most leaders live inside organizations.

When uncertainty is high, good leaders go quiet.

This is not because they are indifferent. It’s because they were trained to believe leaders are supposed to have all the answers. When they don’t, they default to a familiar set of moves that feel professional but don’t land:

• More email updates, fewer real conversations

• Silence until the answer is complete, sometimes for weeks

• The “what” gets communicated — the “why” gets skipped

• Corporate speak (“headwinds,” “right-sizing”) creates distance instead of clarity

• Facts and processes when their people are looking for meaning

That’s the part executives miss. The damage from good leadership isn’t loud. It’s drift and you don’t see it until your best people are interviewing somewhere else.

When we asked employees how they actually feel working for a “good” leader, three things jumped off the page. All three are communication gaps.

Knowing the person, not just the worker

Employees under good leaders don’t feel that what’s personally important to them is valued. There’s a real difference between “I see what you do” and “I see who you are.”

Most leaders are good at thanking people for hitting the deadline and closing the deal. Exceptional leaders also understand the person sitting across from them: what they’re building toward and what they care about beyond the paycheck.

A few practical moves to be exceptional:

• Trade generic recognition for specific recognition: “Great job, team” disappears the second it’s said. “I noticed how you handled that question from finance. You protected the team and you kept the project moving,” is a lot better.

• Ask people what they’re working toward, not just what they’re working on: One of those conversations a quarter can significantly alter the relationship.

• Connect the person to the assignment: “I gave you this project because I know you’ve been wanting to build muscle in this area,” is a 30-second sentence that does more than most career development programs.

Safe enough to say it

The instinct is to read that as a listening problem and good leaders often respond by adding more one-on-ones or open-door hours. That misses what’s actually going on.

Employees are quietly asking a different question: “Is it safe to be honest here?” If the answer is “no,” the meeting ends with everyone nodding and the leader walks out thinking it went well.

This is psychological safety and it’s built or broken in small moments:

• Reward the messenger: Your reaction the first time someone brings you a hard truth trains everyone watching. Get defensive once and the room learns to stop bringing you hard things. Respond with: “Thank you, I needed to hear that,” or, “I appreciate you being brave enough to share your honest experience.” In this way, you’ve just bought yourself a year of better information.

• Demonstrate honesty and vulnerability: Tell people what you don’t know and what you’ve gotten wrong before. They won’t volunteer their uncertainty if they’ve never seen yours.

• Ask the question that signals the room is open: “What’s the thing nobody’s saying out loud?” Then sit with the silence until someone fills it.

• Treat silence as a signal: The person who hasn’t spoken in three meetings is telling you something. Go find them afterward and ask for their honest thoughts.

Showing people their future

Under exceptional leadership, employees feel they’re growing and developing.

The lowest score in our study was this: just 14% of employees under “good” leaders feel they’re “reaching their potential.”

Communicating about growth isn’t a year-end review activity. It’s a weekly habit:

• Tell people what you see in them with specifics: For example: “You have a real instinct for cutting through complexity and I want you doing more of that work.” There’s a sentence most employees have never heard from a manager.

• Connect the strategy to the person: Don’t just announce where the company is going, but show each person where they fit. “The frontline customer service reps are key to our growth goals because they provide critical first and lasting impressions. They literally hold our brand reputation in their hands.”

• Make the path visible: If someone needs to stretch their capabilities, they need to know what the stretch is and that you’ll have their back throughout.

Here’s the part I want to push on because most executive teams get this wrong: Leader communication isn’t a soft skill.

It can make or break the quality of an employee’s work.

I learned this in a parking lot last year, teaching my daughter to drive. She was nervous. I was more nervous. Every time I grabbed the door handle, she tensed up. Every sharp inhale from the passenger seat made her second-guess the next turn.

My anxiety was loud even when I wasn’t saying a word. Once I exhaled and stopped white-knuckling, she started driving.

For the most part, capable, good leaders got us through stable times. They won’t get us through these uncertain times.

The companies that figure that out, treating exceptional leader communication as a priority instead of an option, are on the path to groundbreaking success.

David Grossman is the founder and CEO at The Grossman Group and the author of six books, including this year’s, “The Heart Work of Modern Leadership: 6 Differentiators of Exceptional Leaders.”

He is an advisor to C-suite leaders, working closely with companies such as Abbott, DHL, General Mills, Grubhub, Kimberly-Clark, Lockheed Martin, Novartis and Stanley Black & Decker.

Grossman has been a source for articles in the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Sun Times, Fast Company, Forbes, Fortune, Newsweek, the World Economic Forum, Directors & Boards and CBS MoneyWatch.

Share

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits)

Communication Intelligence is a newsletter that is interview-and-source driven on topics and comments in the news and online articles and important and thoughtful ideas. It additionally consists of expert-source contributions from professionals on specific topics in their profession.

Subscribe now

In addition to the newsletter, Communication Intelligence offers services to help people clearly, effectively communicate their expertise within and outside of their organization. Reach out to detail your objectives, desired outcomes and the best way to work with you in a business interaction.

Sometimes, people contact this newsletter and communicate a point — or points — that go below and beyond the surface of a narrative and what they are saying holds one’s attention and drives curiosity for greater understanding.

“One of the things I’ve been exploring,” Blessing Platinum-Williams wrote to me, “is how much of what we consider ‘miscommunication’ is actually a lack of awareness around tone, patterns and behavioral signals.”

The London-based creator of Tonely AI, an “auto reflect” keyboard and Chrome extension that shows the likely tone and intention behind a message as you type, says that “small patterns in language can compound and create real-world consequences, in relationships, workplaces and online spaces.”

Platinum-Williams has been confident that her “therapy-informed perspective on language, along with a law background… reinforces one belief: words matter.”

She has recognized a clear, troubling pattern and problem that requires addressing.

Which has led her to an unwavering conclusion.

”I believe there’s a strong opportunity to shift the conversation from performance to awareness,” Platinum-Williams optimistically asserted.

She speaks to what she has learned and believes is at the root of the lack of or insufficiency of social, communication awareness, and to what it can most attributed.

“A lot of that lack of awareness,” Platinum-Williams asserts, “comes from how we’ve been conditioned to communicate. Most people were never actually taught how their words land, only what to say or not say.”

The result, she proposes, is a disconnect.

That’s but part of the problem and the gap.

“We’re messaging quickly, responding quickly, thinking less. There’s very little pause,” Platinum-Williams explains. “And without that pause, there’s no space for reflection. So it’s not always that people don’t care, it’s that they’ve never been trained to notice and they’re moving too fast to realize.”

There is a reality, not necessarily a criticism, to understand as well.

“There’s also a deeper layer. A lot of people haven’t done the internal work to understand themselves, so naturally they won’t understand how they come across,” Platinum-Williams says.

“If you’re not aware of your own patterns, your own triggers, your own way of speaking, then you’re going to project that outward without even realizing.”

The task of reliably surfacing awareness before escalation develops is a significantly important, challenging one.

“Advice after the fact is easy to ignore or it becomes something people feel defensive about,” Platinum-Williams says. “But when someone is about to say something, that’s where the real opportunity is. That small window where they can pause and think, ‘is this how I actually want to come across?’”

Simple in theory, complicated in practice, which she realizes.

“Awareness has to feel immediate and personal. Not generic, not theoretical but connected to what that person is doing in real time,” Platinum-Williams says.

When this is happening, a helpful shift becomes possible and more likely.

“That’s where real change happens,” Platinum-Williams respectfully argues. “Not through being told but through seeing yourself clearly.”

Share

The critical need for understanding, the natural, common overlooking of the gap and either not seeing or not caring about how we’re being perceived, are arguably, social deficiencies.

“We’re not recognizing the need for understanding because we’ve prioritized output for so long,” Platinum-Williams says. “In work, in relationships, even online, the focus has been on efficiency. Say what you need to say, get your point across, move on.”

Time pressure, convenience and habit usually rule supreme, regardless of risk.

She pushes back on a common reaction to offense.

“There’s also an assumption that if your intent is good, then that should be enough. But intent doesn’t protect you from impact,” Platinum-Williams says.

“You can mean well and still cause harm. And until people really accept that, they won’t see the need to close that gap.”

Moving the needle, so to speak, from performance-based communication to a higher-level of awareness and care requires a dynamic change in thinking and standards.

It “starts with changing what we value,” Platinum-Williams easily says.

She proposes something simple, yet not emotionally easy, as a starting point.

Practicality has to be part of the formula for this to work well and reliably.

Awareness, “can’t just be an idea. It has to be something people can actually do. Small, consistent moments of reflection that build over time,” she says.

What we expect of ourselves is a root driver of “better."

There is much to be gained.

“When people realize that awareness isn’t about restricting them but about giving them control over how they show up, that’s when the shift really happens,” she concludes.

Subscribe now

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits)

Communication Intelligence is a newsletter that is interview-and-source driven on topics and comments in the news and online articles and important and thoughtful ideas. It additionally consists of expert-source contributions from professionals on specific topics in their profession.

Share

In addition to the newsletter, Communication Intelligence offers services to help people clearly, effectively communicate their expertise within and outside of their organization. Reach out to detail your objectives, desired outcomes and the best way to work with you in a business interaction.

Communication in a manner with employees that gets respected and accepted requires understanding of what the reasonable, base expectations might be or likely are from them, because otherwise, leadership might ignite a reaction that they didn’t expect and puts them in an heated situation.

Boston Red Sox chief baseball officer Craig Breslow ended up receiving criticism inside and outside (media) of his organization for how he handled a decision to terminate a manager and five of his assistants for a disappointing collective performance.

Reportedly, the lack of clarity of the messaging, the disinterest to accept questions about the decision, the surprise that it was to people inside the organization and the timing, all were upsetting to employees.

Trevor Story was one of them to speak out, explaining that the explanation given to him and his co-workers for their immediate boss — Alex Cora — being fired wasn’t “satisfactory.” Story’s co-worker, Garrett Whitlock added that Breslow didn’t give anyone the chance to ask questions during that meeting.

This wasn’t a minor disagreement about approach and communication. It was a situation that led to strong, negative feelings, decreased trust and a problem in the relationship. It became a conflict.

Breslow didn’t ignore or dismiss the problem inside the company or with the media.

This is not an organization’s communications team releasing a statement. This is a high-level leader communicating that, regardless of what he thinks about the negative reaction and whether it was deserving, he was thinking more deeply about “how” communication was interpreted and experienced and committing to improvement.

“As George Bernard Shaw famously warned,“ says Aileen Pincus, the founder and president at The Pincus Group, an executive communications firm, “‘The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.’”

She points to a common, costly ignorance and oversight.

“Good communication isn’t one sided. Making a major announcement, then holding an in-person meeting while limiting questions about that announcement, is predictably a big swing and a miss.”

She elaborates as to what wasn’t done that should have been considered.

“The goal here should never have been to simply “deliver information’ to share (as Breslow stated above). Every successful communication needs to consider the audience being communicated to, especially when communicating about change and major disruptions, such as firings.

“The criticism of Breslow, in my opinion, is as well-deserved as it is predictable.”

Herron does see a positive in how Breslow reviewed his approach.

”The good is that he’s treating communication as part of the decision, not something that happens after,” says Ken Herron, co-founder at VCONify, a conversation infrastructure company, which examines how communication plays out inside companies, especially how it changes as it moves from leadership to the frontline.

“Most leaders still separate the two. They decide first, then figure out how to explain it. That’s where things usually go sideways.”

Herron recommends proceeding differently.

“The stronger version is when leaders think about delivery at the same time they’re making the decision, not after the fallout,” he says.

Breslow expressed that he wants his people to know that he is willing to adjust and interact differently.

If this type of interaction can become the norm, the effectiveness of communication, reaction and response — and the relationship byproducts — could change.

“It can improve more than most people expect, because the real issue in companies isn’t intent,” Herron asserts. “It’s translation.”

He elaborates:

“What leadership says, what gets passed along and what people actually hear are often three different things,” Herron explains.

“When leaders ask for feedback on how communication landed, they start to close that gap: Fewer misunderstandings. Less internal friction. More trust over time.

“It’s not dramatic in the moment, but it compounds quickly.”

Pincus points to a lurking reality about which many employees may agree.

“Calling for feedback seems an easy solution for some leaders but it’s often a meaningless gesture to those on the losing end of the power imbalance between themselves and those in control of the livelihoods of others,” she says.

That doesn’t mean Pincus isn’t a proponent of it.

“Successful leaders are successful because they work to earn the respect of those they lead, and not just at times of crisis, but routinely,” she respectfully argues.

“The right thing to do isn’t always the easy thing to do but it often involves facing criticism of your decisions and doing it without defensiveness.

As to Breslow’s errors and those leaders still making similar ones?

“Open communication would have made all of the difference here, even had the same firing decisions been made,” Pincus says.

Share

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits)

Subscribe now

Communication Intelligence is a newsletter that is interview-and-source driven on topics and comments in the news and online articles and important and thoughtful ideas. It additionally consists of expert-source contributions from professionals on specific topics in their profession.

In addition to this newsletter, Communication Intelligence offers writing services for leaders and entrepreneurs. To learn more, you can hit the button below.

Validation and appreciation feel good to most people, just maybe not everyone.

"I hate compliments," musical artist P!nk told Zane Low in a podcast interview at Apple Music, on Youtube in February, 2023. "I really do much better with criticism. Positive reinforcement is really not my thing."

Watching the video clip, she seemed to genuinely mean it.

P!nk has additionally said, “I like being uncomfortable,” which is also not a state that the majority of people choose of their own volition.

Those comments stand outside the norm and will get the attention of most people, especially those who may not have experienced compliments and maybe worse, receive mostly criticism.

A curious person may wonder what is at the root of this personal reality, belief system and communication.

“The way we interpret and respond to compliments and criticism is shaped by experiences and messaging from childhood. Attachment history, cognitive distortions and perfectionism all play a role in how someone takes in positive feedback,” says Mary McLaughlin, a licensed clinical social worker and psychotherapist.

“What we learned to expect from others as children, influences how we take in and process feedback. People with secure attachment, whose needs were met consistently, are more likely to feel good when complimented. The feedback makes sense and they can trust it without overanalyzing it.”

Yet, if that’s not their reality, they are more apt to react and respond differently.

“Adults who experienced inconsistent care as children often respond differently to compliments. Positive feedback can feel confusing, hard to trust and even anxiety-provoking,” McLaughlin says.

Environments impact people’s relationship with communication and interpretation.

“Our culture encourages humility and not being conceited,” says Lisa S. Larsen, a psychologist. “When we acknowledge that we did something well, it might be threatening to people who have a strong sense of shame and propriety.

“This seems to be true, especially for older generations, where humility is more valued. Younger people might feel more comfortable being acknowledged and accepting compliments.”

The familiarity of criticism can be something that feels normal and what makes sense.

“Another possible explanation is that if we've been criticized and diminished by our caretakers growing up, we might have a story about ourselves that we are not worthy of praise and appreciation. Therefore, compliments might contradict our stories about ourselves and what we believe to be true,” Larsen explains.

“This may create cognitive dissonance and be uncomfortable. However, with time, we can learn to accept compliments and trust that we deserve them.”

Feeling and communicating that one “hates’ compliments, that they “don’t do well with positive reinforcement” is one thing yet following that up that they “really do much better with criticism” can come off as a confusing, nonsensical admission.

It, “is a self-constructed narrative,” McLaughlin says. “It's a belief shaped by past experiences and habits, not a fixed trait, like eye color.

“People often find comfort in what’s familiar. If you grew up around criticism or experienced a lot of it directly, it can feel more normal than praise. For some people, criticism also feels motivating. It pushes them to try harder, do better or prove something to themselves and others.”

When someone, similar to P!nk, has determined criticism is more desirable for themselves, for whatever reason that makes sense to them, it can be helpful to know what they might not be considering about that mindset and practice.

“I actually think what’s healthy is examining the reasons behind your resistance to compliments. rather than accepting and reinforcing the idea that you ‘do better with criticism,’” McLaughlin asserts.

“Maybe you believe it motivates you to improve. … but more context is needed,” she adds, before going deeper to elaborate.

“While criticism can lead to temporary motivation and improved performance, without balance it can also lead to burnout from never feeling good enough. Whether feedback is positive or negative, if you’re conditioned to value criticism, you’re more likely to reject praise and therefore, miss the big picture.”

Larsen points to basic human wiring and functionality.

“Healthy people can respond well to both compliments and constructive feedback,” she respectfully argues. “Compliments, when sincere, can give us encouragement and hope. They can also feel good to the recipient if seems accurate and useful.

“Constructive criticism can give us a sense of humility and ideas for how to improve our endeavors. When well-balanced, compliments and criticism can be helpful to someone wanting to do their best.”

McLaughlin concludes by recommending a different, maybe bold, approach.

“What’s healthier is to challenge those core beliefs and see what shifts,” she counsels. “Real growth comes from being able to take in the broader view so you can improve where needed, without losing sight of what you’re already doing well.

“When your view of yourself is more balanced and accurate, you don’t have to work so hard to prove or protect it — and that’s freeing.”

Share

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits)

Communication Intelligence is a newsletter that is interview-and-source driven on topics and comments in the news and online articles and important and thoughtful ideas. It additionally consists of expert-source contributions from professionals on specific topics in their profession.

Subscribe now

We may not always be reading signals accurately when giving a presentation of some type. Falling short in a moment can feel hurtful or like failure. Perceptions can deceive.

What the communicator desires to elicit as an immediate reaction or final response from an audience may not develop and it can leave someone shaken emotionally, psychologically and influence how they proceed, when it isn’t necessary.

It’s a point that Steve Martin, the comedian, actor, writer, producer and musician, talked about in the brief video clip below for Masterclass.

While he was speaking in the context of comedy, what Martin communicated is more about audience reaction and people’s emotional interpretations and responses to what they are experiencing that might not be true.

Discomfort and fear can overwhelm decision-making and derail success.

“I remember being in an arena, you know, playing for 18-thousand people and I’d hear the biggest laugh I’ve ever heard and I’d look out into the audience and it would be 1 out of 20 laughing,” Martin said, to begin making his point.

He came to realize that isn’t necessarily a reflection of the quality of his work.

What is being viewed and heard isn’t always disinterest or disapproval.

Communicators may assume the worst and feel poorly, judged and their brain and body responds in a manner aligned with those perceptions, conclusions and feelings.

It's helpful to learn insights about when audience signals don’t align with hopes or expectations so that confidence in the moment is not drained, so someone can continue communicating at their best.

“One of the most important things we can do,” says Brian Grossman, a positive intelligence coach and the director of growth and programs at Joyely-dot-com, “is separate observation from interpretation in real time.”

Grossman, who works with CEOs and senior leaders to strengthen their ability to manage internal dialogue, interpret external signals accurately and respond with clarity under pressure, says this guidance is rooted in the “why.”

That reality isn’t one that people are cognizant of in the moment. It needs to be.

“In a world where leaders are under constant scrutiny — on stages, on Zoom and across digital platforms — misreading neutral or ambiguous reactions can quickly erode confidence and distort communication,” Grossman warns.

To him, this can be prepared for, prevented or mitigated with a question.

“By consciously asking, ‘What else could be true?’ you interrupt that automatic negative loop,” Grossman says. “This allows you to stay grounded, maintain clarity in your messaging and protect your reputation as a composed, thoughtful communicator, even when feedback is unclear.”

There is another reality, sometimes forgotten, to consider, according to Ian Hawkins, an author and a speaking and storytelling coach at Netflix.

“If you don’t see the audience following where you’re going,” he teaches, “remind yourself of two things: first, you’re the boss. You have authority. Lead them explicitly where you want them to go.

“The second thing is that audiences want you to do well. So, if you know what they want, you can promise it to them and deliver.”

It’s not all about you.

“Realize that people bring past experiences with them and it might not be about you or your talk but something they are feeling, not associated with you,” says Sheryl Mays, a speaker, author, corporate trainer and the CEO at Rise and Shine Coaching and Consulting Firm.

“I always like to ask questions to get a consensus of the audience, in case I need to change a joke or a reference. If you always do your best, keep in mind: Some will, some won't, so what.”

Martin learned that what his emotions and psychology were communicating to him in an observation and disappointing moment didn’t always play out as he suspected.

“You think the audience is dead and at the end, they leap to their feet with the biggest roar that you’ve had that week,” he said.

Maybe, even if that isn’t an absolute as an outcome when favorable audience signals aren’t showing, there is an important takeaway.

It’s not surprising that immediate approval is expected by people’s minds.

“We are operating in an environment that conditions us to expect instant feedback likes, comments, reactions,” Grossman points out. “We can mistakenly equate silence with failure, when in reality, the message may be landing in a deeper, more lasting way.”

Responding to perception that is inaccurate comes with risks.

“If you rely on immediate feedback to gauge your effectiveness,” Grossman says, “you risk overcorrecting, diluting your message or losing consistency, three things that weaken trust over time.”

He simplifies what he has been communicating about the challenge.

Share

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits)

Communication Intelligence is a newsletter that is interview-and-source driven on topics and comments in the news and online articles and important and thoughtful ideas. It additionally consists of expert-source contributions from professionals on specific topics in their profession.

Subscribe now

In addition to this newsletter, Communication Intelligence offers writing services for leaders and entrepreneurs. To learn more, you can hit the button below.

We may not be cognizant that some of the pain that we experience is redundant and preventable. The reason being, it’s originating in our minds and is within our control.

”Pain comes in two arrows. The first arrow is the event itself. The thing that happens to you that you can’t control,” Vinh Giang recently communicated in a text post and video on LinkedIn. “The second arrow? That’s you beating yourself up about it.”

He says that he just did it too.

“And that one? That’s one that I shot at myself,” Giang said.

A highly-visible communication coach on Instagram and LinkedIn, Giang talked about the reality of people and their disappointment, especially in important moments.

“We can’t always avoid the first arrow. Life happens,” he added in this text post and video. “But we have complete control over whether we pick up that second arrow and aim it at ourselves.

“This year, I’m practicing catching myself before I fire that second arrow. I’m learning to give myself the same grace I’d give a friend going through something hard. You’re human. I’m human. We’re all doing our best with what we have in each moment.”

Learning that “shooting a second arrow” of pain at ourselves is counterproductive, comes with increasing costs and that there is a better way to emotionally, psychologically respond for a beneficial outcome, seems like a worthwhile pursuit.

“Nobody heals by beating themselves up,” says Megan Collins, a therapist, consultant, speaker and practice owner at NeuroArts Therapy & Consulting.

“Self-compassion is the answer, we all make mistakes,” she adds.

This painful habit often goes back years in some people, “who developed core beliefs about themselves in early development,” Collins explains. “They believe they are a failure and broken, not good enough — and they seek evidence in mistakes to confirm those beliefs about themselves.”

She offers a simple point to remember.

“Self-talk matters. Start by just catching yourself in the moment and noticing the behavior or thoughts without judgment,” Collins says.

This habit may not always be a negative and harmful unless it is extreme, exaggerated, inaccurate and common. Yet, in those cases, whether professionally or personally, it can cause compounding problems.

She explains why that is troublesome.

“Mistakes in life are inevitable. How else can we expect to grow or learn? Yet that inner critic slowly causes damage to our self-worth. We question whether we believe we’re good enough.”

Giang concluded his communication with a question.

“What would change if you stopped being your own harshest critic?” he asked.

Collins proposes asking oneself an important, piercing question.

“Does it feel helpful to the nervous system?” she recommends. “I use affirmations and teach people about cognitive distortions. The best way is to express the feeling and get them outside of you in a healthy way that doesn’t hurt yourself or others.”

Coming to an understanding of the availability of agency can open doors to fresh thinking and response habits.

“Since the second arrow is ultimately self-inflicted, once clients understand it can be within their control to change whether they shoot it or not, there is always a desire to have it be different,” Lachance-Poirrier says.

“I believe learning this is a three-part process. I first ask clients to simply notice the responses they have towards themselves when something didn’t go as planned. It wouldn’t be practical to expect them to be able to do anything about it initially, because we don’t know what we don’t know.”

That small discipline can be the start of a new, better beginning.

“Awareness will ultimately bring perspective and perspective will bring change,” Lachance-Poirrier asserts.

That achievement leads into the next stage of growth.

“The second step is correcting it,” Lachance-Poirrier says. “For example, you spill your coffee all over yourself before work. The first reaction might be to call yourself a name, curse and get mad at yourself, the day and anything else in your path.

“Once you are used to noticing this, take a breath and have a second thought that is not the typical, shameful one,” she adds. “To continue acting this scenario out, this may look like saying ‘that wasn’t nice, I’m going to try that again,’ and then have a different reaction: ‘I really didn’t want that to happen and am so frustrated. Let’s clean this up and take care of it.’”

This practice, done consistently, will help develop a new, reliable response.

“Over time, when practiced with intention, the lag between the initial reaction and the shameful one will shrink and be replaced by a deep breath and ability to move on (positively),” Lachance-Poirrier says.

She brings up her final step in the process: perspective.

“When someone can lessen the reaction they have towards themselves and breathe through a frustrating or disappointing incident, moving on quickly and efficiently, they are gaining perspective and able to maintain their sense of self-esteem, self-worth and learn what they may want to do differently next time,” Lachance-Poirrier explains.

Subscribe now

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits)

Communication Intelligence is a newsletter that is interview-and-source driven on topics and comments in the news and online articles and important and thoughtful ideas. It additionally consists of expert-source contributions from professionals on specific topics in their profession.

Share

In addition to this newsletter, Communication Intelligence offers writing services for leaders and entrepreneurs. To learn more, you can hit the button below.

Competency, important contributions and marketable value don’t always result in greater opportunities and the level of compensation reflecting the depth and totality of what is delivered by a professional.

Karen Laos, an advisor on communication, confidence and negotiation and a speaker for the c-suite and the author of “Trust Your Own Voice,” has something to say about it.

She recalls her origin story and mission on her website.

“I stopped fully trusting myself,” Laos discovered and began. “I spoke with confidence in most settings, yet in certain moments with those in power, I found myself holding back. My defining moment came in a boardroom when I froze before my presentation.”

Her boss stopped the meeting, pulled her aside and said something that commanded her attention and resonated deeply.

“You didn’t trust your gut,” he told Laos.

“I was mortified,” she recalled, “but that moment motivated me to reclaim my voice.”

She didn’t want to be a prisoner of self-doubt anymore. She committed to transforming that common liability into confidence, “first, in myself and then, for others.”

Which is what she has done for over two decades. In that time, she has served as an advisor and keynote speaker, delivering talks and trainings for companies like Google, Starbucks and NASA. She also hosts the Ignite Your Confidence podcast.

Laos says that women are losing significant money by not always communicating assertively, showing their full value and communicating their potential in a way that gets heard and gets rewarded.

“Accomplished women are incredibly capable but they’ve been culturally conditioned to look to others for permission before taking action, so they often don’t trust themselves,” she says.

“The messages,” she argues, “are, be likable. Be agreeable. Don’t be ‘too much.’ Don’t rock the boat. Wait your turn.”

That common messaging and approach is highly problematic, Laos contends.

This dovetails into a deeper level issue, preventing what often wins in organizations.

“Instead of clearly stating their value, they soften it. They hedge. They use minimizing language…,” Laos says. “Men experience self-doubt too but they’re more likely to speak before they feel ready. Women tend to wait until they feel fully prepared and that gap is where money is lost.”

She points to a study to provide evidence.

“Research from Hewlett-Packard found that men apply for a job when they meet about 60% of the qualifications, while women tend to wait until they meet nearly 100%. That’s not a confidence gap. It’s a conditioning gap,” Laos says.

There’s additional research to consider.

“Even more telling, many reported they were taught early on not to promote themselves or speak too confidently because it could be perceived negatively.”

Shrinking oneself in applying for jobs, communicating in the workplace and negotiating is costly and comes with compound interest.

Laos talks about a strategic response to it.

Laos elaborates to paint a more specific picture.

“It’s about knowing what to say and how to say it,” she says. “Once you have the communication strategies to do that, you’re automatically more confident.”

Laos offers some detail.

“One simple tip is to decide what you want and then ask for it, leading with the benefits to the audience in mind,” she says. “If you’re prepared with what the person you’re pitching cares about, that gets their attention.”

She goes deeper still.

“For example, instead of leading with ‘I want a promotion,’ say instead, ‘I know you’re looking to expand the marketing department so we can bring in more clients and I have an idea to help with that.’ Then, you share how your promotion will benefit the company or department,” Laos teaches.

“You make a much more compelling case when you make it about the audience.”

Share

Keep records as proof, she advises.

“Another tip is to collect evidence to show yourself that you have what it takes,” Laos says. “Make a list of your accomplishments and how they’ve made a difference —either how they’ve profited the company or saved time.

“Not only will that help you feel more confident, it will demonstrate the value of your work to the decision maker.”

When this is done, movement is taking place, even if not immediately noticed.

There is an additional byproduct that results.

“This moves her from ‘hoping to be seen’ to ‘deciding to be heard,’” Laos says.

Simple actions can spark momentum.

“Start with this, speak first,” Laos urges. “In your next meeting, don’t wait. Don’t rehearse it ten times in your head. Don’t wait for the perfect opening. Say your point early.”

She explains what this can accomplish.

“There’s something powerful that happens when you enter the conversation instead of orbiting it” People begin to associate you with leadership, not just participation,” Laos teaches.

She talks about why else it is a difference maker.

She concludes with one more tip.

“Ask for what you want,” Laos stresses. “Full stop.”

Share

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits)

Communication Intelligence is a newsletter that is interview-and-source driven on topics and comments in the news and online articles and important and thoughtful ideas. It additionally consists of expert-source contributions from professionals on specific topics in their profession.

Subscribe now

A large part of the public who are using AI may be offloading too much of their decision-making to the technology. That high level of trust and overreliance is a curious development, considering how much humans value autonomy and agency.

That habit could become one that is difficult to break.

These points are ones that Nat Rubio-Licht, a senior reporter at The Deep View, recently examined as she reported on recent research that might surprise most people.

The research was no small sample size. It involved nearly 1,400 people and 9,500 trials.

In other words, it was a significant investment of time, attention, focus and study and scientists learned that people “accepted unsound AI reasoning more than 73% of the time and only overruled models’ decisions about 20% of the time,” Rubio-Licht reported. What happened to the remaining 7% was not mentioned.

Those figures, reasonably argued, are alarming numbers.

Who is most likely to cede this much power of decision-making? “Participants with higher trust in AI and ‘lower need for cognition and fluid intelligence’ tended to fall victim to this more often,” Rubio-Licht wrote.

This, however, isn’t always a negative, Rubio-Licht reported.

“The researchers, however, posit that cognitive surrender may not inherently be a bad thing,” she wrote. “If an AI model is generally better at reasoning and decision-making than the person using it, with fewer mistakes, ‘deferring to a statistically superior system may be adaptive or even optimal.’”

Rubio-Licht ended her article with a viewpoint from what she learned.

“Even if AI is someday capable of doing everything, the dividing line between reaping the benefits and losing ourselves is in what we let it do,” she wrote.

Cognitive surrender, for different reasons, has become commonplace for different reasons, says Uwe Weinreich, a trained psychologist, consultant and the founder at Empowerment Team Berlin, which focuses on building work cultures and environments of the future, where AI and humans complement each other's strengths.

“We as humans are wired that way … to establish emotional relationships with anything that shows even the weakest signals of life,” he explains. “This also happens when we are confronted with AI. It speaks to us, so, we build a relationship.”

The language approach of the technology plays a role, Weinreich adds.

“It’s also the way AI speaks: eloquent yet clear, in a way that’s easy to follow,” he says. “Bang! Convinced.”

Additionally, there is the matter of our emotional and cognitive bandwidth.

“We all have an innate tendency to optimize our energetic spendings,” Weinrich says. “So, why should I question a result that sounds so good? That requires an extra push and extra effort.”

It’s a point to realize and remember.

Reality of responsibility plays a role as well.

“Time management,” Weinreich concisely says. “Ask your favorite LLM a random question, let’s say 15 words, and you end up with an answer that might be 15 pages long. Who can and will read all that?”

The cognitive surrender could be more widespread than thought.

“Already today, some developers are rather orchestrating 5-to-ten coding agents instead of writing code themselves,” Weinreich says. “Who’s gonna check the code? Probably nobody, at least not all of it.”

The years ahead might be more pronounced.

“Some futurists predict that we will have a ratio of 1 in 1000, that is one employee surrounded by 1,000 AI agents. Honestly, it will become impossible not to surrender cognitively,” Weinreich says.

Psychology of connection and relationships are a driving factor.

“The systems are trained to please us,” Weinreich says. “Companies are happy when users are happy and pay happily. The best way to make them happy is to give them what they want. This is way most LLMs are shameless people pleasers.

“When the system gives us an answer the perfectly resonates with what we are thinking and feeling, why shouldn’t we trust it completely — and overly?”

As to the question of whether this could have been predicted, he suggests no and yes.

“It is always difficult to forecast the effects of solutions and systems that nobody has seen before,” Weinreich says. “Warnings had been there but they were criticized to be exaggerated. Understandable.

“Seeing ourselves as submissive to and dependent from a technical system collides with our self-esteem. We are still in an early phase of AI adoption and currently learning how to shape our lives with it.”

There is some pushback about the predictability of ceding a high amount of decision-making authority to AI.

“This was totally predictable,” says Andre Walton, a social psychologist, TEDx speaker and founder at Plan4Change, a new approach to decision-making.

“When we confront a new situation, such as a question that needs answering or a decision that needs making, our subconscious seeks the simplest way of resolving the challenge,” he adds.

“Before AI, it would go to its memory banks to find how we addressed a similar situation in the past. We would use this as a template for the current challenge. This demonstrates the natural human tendency to seek 'mental laziness.’ It saves time and energy.”

Our minds will usually default to this pull.

“Armed with the knowledge that our brains are inherently lazy, it is easy to see why AI provides the easy option and leads to the majority of users showing decreased critical thinking skills,” Walton says.

He implies it’s important to elaborate on the research stated earlier.

“When you state ‘...only overruled models' decisions about 20% of the time' and that people accepted wrong AI answers 73% of the time, it may be that 20% of users were always critical thinkers and 80% — or actually 73% — were always 'cognitive surrenderers.’”

Controlling or overcoming the habit of excessively trusting AI, at least in the stages it is now, could be an uphill climb.

“It is a challenge but it is one to which the answer comes naturally,” Walton says.

“Reversing this blind trust requires re-introducing the kind of thinking that we had as young children,” he adds. “The child's way of addressing new situations requires that we look at the whole picture in order to see how the new information or question fits into what we already know.

“If we introduce this process into our thinking regarding AI output, we can see many more options to our question. This perspective enables us to see that the AI output may be only one possibility and that there may be other options.”

He elaborates as to why that is valuable.

“This process causes us to think critically about all the options, not just the AI offering,” Walton says.

Weinreich says changing how we interact now will be hard.

“The factors mentioned earlier show that it is no easy task,” he admits.

“It will require active learning and establishing acceptable ways of interacting with AI.”

Weinreich adds a final counterpoint to critics’ arguments and the public’s concerns.

“We should care for a society-wide learning process and not demonize technology,” he argues. “So far, humanity has always managed to get along with new developments.”

Share

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits)

Communication Intelligence is a newsletter that is interview-and-source driven on topics and comments in the news and online articles. It also consists of written contributions from professionals on specific topics in their profession.

Subscribe now

False presumptions happen within organizations in both the micro and macro and when they are not clearly identified early, they continue negatively effectiveness and efficiency of outcomes.

Justin W. Atherton has regularly witnessed it, studied it and spoken about it to get the attention of organizational leadership.

The author of “How to Get to the Damn Point” and a speaker — his TEDx Talk, “The Suspect Within,” has drawn on his 20 years in law enforcement as a detective, SWAT breacher and supervisor to challenge leaders “to confront how unclear language quietly erodes authority, execution and trust, even in high-performing organizations.”

That boldness may not be well received by everyone yet some organizations’ curiosity is captured and they prove receptivity to discovery and learning painful truths.

The majority of leaders have come to believe that execution problems are rooted in errors in their strategy. Atherton is convinced is not always factual and accurate.

His conclusion: the gap between a good decision and a good outcome is almost always an issue of language and interpretation and nobody wants to admit it.

He elaborates on that sharp analysis.

“A decision only matters if it survives translation,” Atherton says. “The moment it leaves the room, it gets filtered through vague language, softened expectations and assumptions that no one verifies. That’s where execution breaks down.

“Not because people are incapable but because they were never given something clear enough to execute in the first place.”

This may come across as shocking or possibly offensive to accomplished, highly-professional, disciplined and precise leaders and communicators. Atherton further explains what he means to illustrate reality.

“Language is the delivery system of every decision. If the language is loose, the outcome will be inconsistent. Every time,” Atherton expresses. “People don’t own it because clear language removes their safety net.”

If this is confusing to those whom he communicates and advises, he goes deeper into the “why” again.

“The moment you say, ‘this is on me,’ or ‘this is exactly what we’re doing,’ you eliminate ambiguity,” Atherton stresses. “There’s no room to reinterpret it later. No room to shift responsibility. That level of clarity feels risky to a lot of leaders.”

That discomfort or fear can result in conscious or subconscious misadjustment that is unhelpful to leadership communication and process.

“So instead, they default to language that gives them an out,” Atherton asserts. “If it works, they take credit. If it doesn’t, they can point back and say it was misunderstood, misaligned or still in discussion.”

This gets to the core.

This, Atherton learned and concluded long ago, means that “clarity” is much more than communication and a skill, “It’s a leadership obligation.”

Leaders aren’t always cognizant, at least fully — of their thinking, the communication that follows and the impact it shows.

“Most people aren’t as aware as they think, they’ve just normalized it,” Atherton says.

“What starts as intentional avoidance turns into habit. Over time, phrases like ‘we should,’ ‘let’s revisit,’ and ‘circle back’ don’t even register as vague. They sound professional. Collaborative. Safe,” he explains.

What’s problematic about that reality and a developed default, costly blindspot is that in operating in this manner, leaders are, “removing ownership,” Atherton argues.

“At an individual level, people use that language to avoid being pinned down,” he says. “At a team level, it creates shared ambiguity. And at an organizational level, it becomes culture, where everyone sounds aligned but no one is actually accountable.”

He shines a light on the reality of what gets believed in vague language.

“No one says ‘let’s circle back’ because it’s the best move,” Atherton says. “They say it because it delays commitment. It buys time. It keeps the conversation safe without forcing a decision.”

To him, that is, in most situations, unnecessary and an impediment.

“The problem is, it creates the illusion of progress without any real movement. Teams walk out of meetings feeling aligned but nothing actually changed because nothing was clearly assigned or defined,” Atherton argues.

He proposes and recommends an approach for improvement.

“If you’re leading the room, you don’t let vague language stand,” Atherton begins:

He makes a distinction about an earlier point and common presumption.

“Clarity isn’t about sounding better. It’s about forcing a decision,” Atherton says.

“If there’s no owner and no deadline, nothing is getting done.”

Leaders don’t always recognize that unclear communication in taking place, the risks involved and the price that may develop.

He adds that it doesn’t just develop and take place. Worse, “it gets rewarded.”

The “how” reveals itself.

“It starts as self-protection,” Atherton explains. “People soften their language to avoid being wrong, avoid conflict or avoid committing too early. Then, the organization reinforces it:

Then, something dangerous to the environment happens.

“Over time, that becomes the culture,” Atherton says. “What feels safe in the moment creates problems later: Missed expectations. Repeated conversations. Slow decisions. All of it traces back to unclear language.”

Too often, in summation, leaders are “burying the point,” Atherton stresses.

With the problem clearly defined, “what next” becomes the challenge and opportunity.

This begins with the understanding, he adds, that “Clear is not that everyone nodded. Clear is that everyone would repeat it the same way. Clarity becomes the expectation, not the exception. If the message can be interpreted multiple ways, it will be.

“And when that happens, execution doesn’t slow down. It breaks.”

Subscribe now

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits)

Communication Intelligence is a newsletter that is interview-and-source driven on topics and comments in the news and online articles. It also consists of written contributions from professionals on specific topics in their profession.

Share

Joshua Bandoch’s commitment to researching, learning and communicating about the science and art of persuasion has led to the upcoming release of his comprehensive work on that human need and life skill.

Bandoch, a communication expert, public policy think-tank leader and TEDx speaker, is the author of “How to Get What You Want: Mastering the Art and Science of Persuasion (available April 21, 2026).”

He’s researched the communication skill for a decade-plus, looking into the psychology, neuroscience, economics, public policy and history of it, as well as taking what he’s learned from his work crafting speeches for senior government officials.

Bandoch’s conclusion is that persuasion is not about “winning” or overpowering but is a process for moving people to shared action. His book presents an actionable framework for high-stakes professional, political and personal interactions.

There could be unexpected discoveries for readers.

He is quick to add that he wants to elaborate.

“We think persuasion is about winning. That just makes your counterpart a loser. We think persuasion is about convincing someone to think like us. And the Latin root of ‘convince,’ means to vanquish or conquer. Conquest is barbaric,” Bandoch explains.

“Persuasion is actually shared action because it’s something we voluntarily do with others and ‘action’ because it’s about getting things done.”

There is a path to becoming more effective and it often can seem counterintuitive.

This often isn’t the mindset and strategy that people exercise.

What is common is believing something that isn’t reliable to work.

“We lead with logic, often launching it at people so they think like us,” Bandoch says, adding the reality is that, “Persuasion starts with feelings.”

This begs a question for which he has an answer.

“What feelings?” Bandoch rhetorically asks. “We’re wired to be negative, so we think negative feelings are persuasive. In fact, positive feelings persuade far more effectively over the short-and-long term.”

He comes back to previous point, the sequencing of it and how the brain processes communication.

People don’t realize it but in their attempts at persuasion, they are often fighting the hard rules of the science, even when they know better.

“All the neuroscience and psychology show that everyone’s brain is wired this way: we feel first, then reason,” Bandoch says. “Feelings, emotions or intuitions always come first. Which means that the logic-first approach where we try to convince people is illogical and usually counterproductive.”

He suggests an example as a test.

“After all, do you like it when someone continues to insist on their point of view?” Bandoch asks.

The reframing is not only smart, it’s the path to success.

Negativity bias is a part of the human mind yet it isn’t well understood and recognized in the moment — and that is problematic.

“We focus on negative information way more than positive,” Bandoch says. “It’s an evolved, survival mechanism because it protects us from threats. While it helps us survive, it impedes thriving because negative emotions aren’t persuasive.”

He brings up history to further his point.

“Consider three of the most persuasive Americans of the 20th Century: John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Ronald Reagan. They were happy warriors. Positivity is persuasive,” Bandoch says.

Keeping that in mind and going back to the science, makes his argument strong.

“To overcome negativity bias and generate positive emotions, you have to be for something,” he adds. “JFK said, ‘Ask not.’ MLK Jr said, ‘I have a dream.’ Reagan saw America as a ‘shining city.’

“So people need to ask themselves: what am I for? Then lead with that.”

Share

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits)

Subscribe now

Communication Intelligence is a newsletter that is interview-and-source driven on topics and comments in the news and online articles. It also consists of written contributions from professionals on specific topics in their profession.

There are workplaces, either due to the systems or personalities, have pockets or widespread areas where people have to protect themselves to emotionally, psychologically survive to retain employment or thrive.

Brené Brown, a researcher, professor and author who studies the human connection, addressed the problem recently on a podcast with fellow researcher, professor and author Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

She said that “a lot of CEOs” tell her “I’m not working with you” when she discusses her Dare to Lead intervention after she boldly tells them what that initially entails.

“We’re going to start by identifying the people with the least amount of formal power and least amount of proximity to power and we’re going to start with one question, ‘Why is armor required or rewarded here?’” Brown told Grant.

That understandably is going to unnerve the vast majority of leadership because of what is being implied. It makes people uncomfortable and maybe, anxious or fearful.

It’s not a surprise that not many organizations want to assume the risks for potentially opening Pandora’s Box.

When Grant responded that it didn’t make sense to him why leaders wouldn’t want to know, Brown had a quick, strong comeback

“It is a choice to fail,” she agreed with Grant before sharply adding, “but it is (also) a choice of self protection and ego, over winning.”

People usually do their best to adjust in difficult people environments at work, even if it is unhealthy for them and the organization. Leadership could choose to inquisitive about where armor is required and rewarded and why this is the reality, whether in the micro or macro.

“The goal isn’t to create curiosity for its own sake. If it stops there, nothing changes,” asserts Katie Kolon, a mediator and conflict resolution trainer with a background in employment law and the founder at Mutual Ground Strategies.

”What matters is helping leaders recognize that when people feel the need to ‘wear armor,’ it’s a signal of a problem in the environment,” she adds.

It’s important to learn that these problems go beyond people’s experiences.

“What often prompts that shift is recognizing the cost,” Kolon says. “When people are operating from self-protection, leaders lose access to their judgment, creativity and full contribution. At that point, curiosity becomes a tool to understand where that is coming from and what it’s impacting.”

“Pointing out to executives the specific, financial cost of emotional friction gets their attention right away,” says Travis Hoechlin, the CEO at RizeUp Media, a legal marketing company. “You have to prove the financial toll, beyond any doubt.”

The byproducts are not often connected to the causes.

“Unspoken fear eats up productive time hour by hour every week,” Hoechlin adds.

Not all leaders believe this is accurate or much of a cost. Hoechlin pushes back.

“Any veteran owner knows innately that tired teams are profit-margin killers,” he says. “We tracked our operational efficiency last year and we noticed a 20% reduction in billable hours whenever the conflict among our team members increased.

“Hard data immediately puts an end to stubborn executives who would be quick to dismiss the importance of employee morale. Only then will the leadership team listen and start making changes to their routine habit.”

“It can be helpful for leaders to view their team as a mirror, rather than blaming employees for the reflection they provide,” says Abby Krom, a psychotherapist specializing in anxiety, perfectionism and relationships, who additionally has delivered wellness talks for organizations on stress, burnout and managing overwhelm in high-performing environments.

“If a team appears fearful, psychologically shut down or burned out, this does not need to be received with shame but it does need to be taken seriously,” she adds, adding that, “This matters for several reasons:

1. A fearful or disengaged team will not produce its best work.

2. These patterns can serve as valuable feedback, not as a source of blame but as an opportunity for leadership growth.

3. People who feel seen, supported and encouraged tend to be more creative, resilient and invested in their work.

She is aware of the reality in the workplace front offices.

“Some leaders may push back, noting that even environments driven by pressure or fear can still produce results. However, this is often short-term thinking,” Krom says.

“There are always downstream consequences to this kind of leadership approach, whether through burnout, turnover, reduced innovation or disengagement.”

“I think a huge change occurs when leaders start to realize this isn’t just a culture issue but a performance issue,” says Harry Morton, the founder at Lower Street, a podcast production company.

“When people self-protect, they don’t contribute as much, don’t take as many risks, don’t communicate as much.”

He’s learned what has proven beneficial for moving towards improvement.

“When you see the patterns in team feedback and tie those to team performance, I think you naturally start to wonder what’s really going on beneath the surface,” Morton says.

A common theme to create receptivity in the minds organizations is focusing more strategically in how the risk is framed.

“To encourage leadership to engage in ethical and psychosocial safe workplaces, the benefits of these environments need to be highlighted and correlated to positive outcomes,” says Cass Nicholson, the founder at the Neurodivergence Voice, a consulting service that highlights neurodivergence as a competitive advantage.

“I think there is a tendency to focus on the emotions of such environments because everyone has experienced a toxic workplace at some point in their career,” yet, “If we take a step back, depersonalize and look at the evidence, the results are obvious.”

There are common reasons why some leaders move away from wanting to learn who doesn’t feel they can operate at work without applying armor or that they will be rewarded if decide to wear it and endure what is painful.

Some organizations, however, may have positive intent and competing priorities.

She elaborates for clarity.

Reframing well what is being sought and the positives for leadership, emotions and psychology may act as a catalyst for needed shifts in attention and corrective action.

“Once it is understood that there is no need to feel shame about learning a better way to lead, growth becomes more possible,” Krom says.”Even if others experienced difficulty under a previous approach, leaders do not need to hold onto guilt or self-punishment in order to move forward.”

Building on what Krom stated, others also look through lens that considers other reasonable and plausible drivers.

“At times, it’s a matter of perceived trade-offs,” Morton says. “There’s a fear that engaging in these conversations will lead to a slowdown or difficulties they feel unprepared to handle.”

While that compounds troubles, it is understandable in some respects.

“For leaders who are under pressure to perform and deliver results, slowing down can feel more harmful than productive, especially when they are not in the headspace to unearth deeper issues,” Morton says.

“So maybe the ignorance doesn’t arise from a lack of care but rather a difference in priority, coupled with a sense of uncertainty about what to do with what they might discover.”

Avoidance does happen however and it’s rooted in very human cognitive processing.

“Some leaders move away from this work because it requires vulnerability and self-reflection, which takes real effort,” Kolon says.

“It also requires a level of self-awareness and internally-sourced confidence that isn’t always developed or supported,” she explains, continuing, “If a leader is relying on external validation or trying to maintain control, this can feel uncomfortable or even threatening, especially in environments that don’t reward it.”

Organizations that are turning away from the reality that some or many of their employees are wearing armor are not doing themselves a favor long-term.

“Executives trying to avoid brutal truth as fixing protocols is very extreme,” Hoechlin stresses. “Serving these unchecked complaints involves the long-term stability of established corporate hierarchies. Reviewing management hours showed our directors work 70% of their workdays putting out immediate fires.

“They don’t generally have the bandwidth to deal with pervasive frustrations while doing operations. So, leaders completely shut down seeing the true systemic repair takes many uninterrupted months of dedicated executive attention.”

Leaders also experience emotions that move them away from better decision-making.

“Rebuilding broken systems naturally terrifies most busy executives in the very chaotic quarters,” Hoechlin says. “Not acknowledging the obvious friction is safer for them.

“Uncovering severe workplace pain requires incredible patience with monumental re-organization of structure. Taking accountability requires managers to have highly uncomfortable discussions.”

This means, he contends, that human nature often prevails.

“That is why retaining the existing standard will always be the path of least resistance.”

Leadership annoyance or uncertainty can also play a role.

“Out of a discomfort with their own or others’ emotions, they may worry that focusing on people skills will give too much attention to emotions and psychological issues in the team members, rather than focusing on their work output,” says Leslie Austin, an executive coach, leadership mentor, behavioral strategist and speaker, who has served Fortune 100 companies and entrepreneurs.

There is also an inaccurate belief that gets in the way, she adds.

“Leaders, understandably, who are always looking at profitability often mistakenly focus only on workflow, processes, decisions, etc. and don’t often look at how stressed, pressured or focused and effective their people are,” Austin says.

Subscribe now

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits).

Communication Intelligence is a newsletter that is interview-and-source driven on topics and comments in the news and online articles. It also consists of written contributions from professionals on specific topics in their profession.

Share

by Lorilyn B. Alden
Creator of the CHAT Communication System

March 26, 2026

Leaders often believe they are making decisions based on clear communication, when, in reality, they are receiving filtered information shaped by how individuals interpret and share what they see.

This filtering impacts how situations are understood and acted upon.

What feels urgent to one person may not be communicated by another and what is shared may be incomplete or delayed. As a result, leaders may be making decisions based on information that is inconsistent, misinterpreted or lacking important context.

One place this shows up is in meetings.

For example, some people and their communication styles may share ideas before fully thinking them through or interrupt someone while they are speaking. When this happens, communication styles that dislike conflict may withdraw from the conversation, preventing potential solutions from being voiced.

In some cases, agendas are created without allowing the time and space certain communication styles need to explore potential solutions.

When they come to the next meeting ready to share what they’ve developed, there may no longer be time on the agenda. This can create frustration for others, as the meeting moves off schedule.

As a result, tension within the team increases and communication can become personal, leading to conflict and misunderstandings. It also leaves leaders without the full picture, leading to decisions made without full understanding.

Share

For example, someone who sees things in black and white, takes information literally and is naturally risk-avoidant, may perceive everything as a potential problem.

On the opposite end, someone who is highly action-oriented determines what is important based on what needs attention now. By the time they report information, there is no longer smoke; it is a fire.

Others may avoid upsetting or disappointing people or engaging in what could be perceived as conflict, so they withhold information. Some will see a challenge and try to solve it themselves before reporting the situation.

This results in leaders receiving inconsistent and often, incomplete information. When leaders don’t recognize different communication styles, they may misjudge urgency or become frustrated by what seems like a lack of clarity.

How information is shared and interpreted varies based on communication style, and often, people are saying the same things but expressing and hearing them in ways that align with their individual preferences.

Leave a comment

When a leader understands these communication styles, they can adjust their approach to recognize that there may be more to the story, that something may not be as urgent as it seems or that a situation may require immediate attention.

Those who recognize the importance of becoming fluent in communication styles ask better questions based on the style with which they are engaging.

For instance, when working with someone who avoids confrontation, creating a safe space by inviting them to a one-to-one conversation in private rather than addressing them in a group can make a significant difference.

When that individual feels safe, connected and trusts the environment, they are more likely to share their true perspective.

Understanding different communication styles also makes it easier to recognize patterns in how people communicate and ask more effective questions.

When these differences are fully embraced, space is created for everyone to contribute, leading to results that may not have been achieved otherwise.

Over time, this awareness creates clearer communication, stronger alignment and more informed decision-making across the organization.

Lorilyn B. Alden is the creator of the CHAT Communication System, a methodology designed to increase awareness of communication styles and how they are perceived within organizations. She works with leaders to reduce conflict, build trust, and improve collaboration through more effective communication.

Share

Subscribe for free, really, or paid (for additional benefits)

Subscribe now

Communication Intelligence is a newsletter that is interview-and-source driven on topics and comments in the news and online articles. It also consists of written contributions from professionals on specific topics in their profession.

Communication Intelligence on LinkedIn

"Human Skills Are the New Hard Skills, wrote John Brewton in his Substack newsletter, Operating by John Brewton, in which he brought up the need for examining beliefs.

He lists putting confidence and our biases under the microscope and asserts that doing so has a habit can build a valued capability.

“Organizations adopting structured de-biasing practices (in decision-making) reported seeing losses reduced by more than 25% on high-frequency decisions,” he wrote, adding that the research has show that “even simple changes in decision frameworks produce measurable improvements in outcome accuracy.”

Perfection isn’t the goal. Risk management and safety is the responsibility and goal.

He points to his recommendation.

Bias and errors happen in decision making, including within smart teams and organizations yet the vast majority of decision-makers may not find the designated dissenter role and application appealing, despite the potential of risks and benefits.

“I think it is very practical and in many cases, more practical than people assume,” says Ryoji Morii, the founder and CEO at Insynergy Inc., a Tokyo, Japan-based consulting firm specializing in decision design.

“In larger decisions, teams often drift toward agreement too quickly, especially when there is hierarchy in the room or pressure to move fast,” he adds.

“A designated dissenter can help slow that down just enough to test whether the apparent consensus is actually sound.”

Morii’s work is conducted at the intersection of decision making, governance and AI, with a particular interest in how organizations assign judgment, define responsibility and avoid weak or ambiguous decision structures.

A particular focus in his recent work has focused on what he labels ‘decision design,” which, he says, is the idea that effective decisions depend not only on good people but on how authority, challenge and accountability are built into the process.

A key component of the designated dissenter, Morii stresses, is structure and shared clarity. “The value, though, depends on how the role is understood,” he says.

“If the person is there simply to disagree, it quickly becomes performative. If the role is to probe assumptions, challenge weak reasoning and make sure obvious risks are not being ignored, then it can be genuinely useful.”

A rotating, designated dissenter will likely provide the greatest value if certain work culture conditions exist.

From the perspective of people assigned to that role and responsibility, there needs to be clarity and discipline exhibited by them.

Emotional balance is a vital, necessary component for this approach to be a success.

“It also helps if the team has a culture mature enough to separate critique of an idea from criticism of a person,” Morii states. “Without that, the role can become awkward very quickly. With that foundation, though, it can improve the quality of analysis and reduce the chance that important concerns go unspoken.”

This practice requires certain boundaries.

“It works best when the role is framed around improving the decision rather than opposing the people making it,” Morii says.

“It also matters that leadership takes the role seriously.”

Morii elaborates to explain what that precisely means in thought and action.

Morii has developed a conclusion from his own professional experience.

“In my view, the most effective version is one where dissent is specific, disciplined and tied to the quality of the final decision,” he says. “That is when it becomes respected rather than merely tolerated.”

Share

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits) for more interviews, analysis, insights and recommendations.

Subscribe now

Communication Intelligence is a newsletter that is interview-and-source driven on topics and comments in the news and online articles. It also consists of written contributions from professionals on specific topics in their profession.

Communication Intelligence on LinkedIn

by Laurence J. Stybel, Ed.D.
Psychologist, co-founder, contributor to Psychology Today and a leadership consultant

March 21, 2026

Ever drive your automobile at 40 miles an hour? At more than 100 miles per hour?

If so, you may have noticed that as the speed of a vehicle increases, peripheral vision decreases. This may be surprising: the same concept applies to talent selection at your company. As the speed of your business increases, decision makers’ peripheral vision isn’t as strong.

When hiring, this means an obsessive focus is on what is directly in their line of sight.

That makes sense because what is front and center is technical and functional experience, which is a priority checkpoint. It’s also easier to determine in interviews and when conducting reference checking.

A peripheral challenge is the fit between the candidate and your corporate culture. and these are more difficult to determine in interviews and reference checking.

Structure, Structure, Structure

The analogy with driving means that decision makers won’t likely recognize peripheral threats while driving 100 miles an hour because at that rate of speed, it is natural to focus on what is directly in front of us.

Extending that analogy, you can’t motivate a hiring authority to pay attention to person-culture fit when the company is moving at 100 miles an hour.

What is required is structure.

Structured Questions During the Process

For most of our clients, openness to new ideas is an important corporate-culture consideration. If that is also is true for your company, ask job candidates the following questions:

“Tell me a story about how you managed to overcome some cherished beliefs for the benefit of team success.”

“When we check with references, we are going to be asking them for examples of how open you are to new ideas. What is your prediction of what they will say?”

Communicating With References

Questions to ask references include:

“On a scale of 0-10, please rate the candidate. Zero is ‘closed to new ideas’ and ten is ‘open to new ideas.’

“Tell me a story to illustrate how the candidate is open to new ideas.”

My experience is that if a candidate is truly open to new ideas, the reference will give a number of 8 or higher and have a specific story to tell about the candidate.

If there is uncertainty, the reference may give a number of 7 or less and will claim to not remember any story.

Limitations

These ideas will not be useful if the candidate’s direct report is closed to new ideas.

And yes, there are also some functions within a corporation where openness to new ideas might be negative. Examples such as audit, quality control or regulatory compliance.

Given the speed of business, it is natural to focus hiring on what is directly in front of you because the team needs someone with specific technical-functional skills, yet overlooking or paying superficial attention to peripheral issues like person-culture fit is a process in error.

It might surprise you to learn that for many organizations, most of the talent that has been fired were probably person-culture misfits.

We recommend structured questions during the interview and a specific, reference-checking process to help make the intangible issues front and center. At the speed of your business, success requires structure. Do not rely upon good intentions.

Share

Laurence J. Stybel, Ed.D., is a psychologist, co-founder, and a regular contributor to Psychology Today. He provides leadership consultation to C-Suite executives and law firm partners. He can be reached at lstybel@stybelpeabody.com.

Subscribe now