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

Leaders who value the brain trust and strength of character around them, want to benefit from regularly accessing it for its wisdom, opportunity and protection.

One well-known and accomplished leader in their field recently talked about it in an interview.

“I love the camaraderie of a close team of associates,” they said. “I want those who will think through what’s best and tell me what’s best. I want wise counsel, which may not be the direction I’m moving — and I want to be open to that.”

It’s no secret that not all people in high levels of authority and power think similarly and agree with that mindset.

It brings up the question, what is required of a leader to identify and build a close team like the one mentioned above, genuinely listen to its best counsel and make sure, thanks to that group, not to go down the wrong paths with leadership beliefs and decision making.

“It requires a leader who has done the interior work first. You cannot build a team that tells you the truth if you have not built the capacity to hear it,” says Mousaab Khaldi, an executive coach and founder at 4 Empires Coaching and creator of the 4 Interior Empires framework.

“That capacity does not come from experience or title — it comes from a leader who has genuinely confronted their own blind spots, who is no longer threatened by being wrong and who has separated their identity from their decisions,” he adds.

There is one thing that is noticeably not present.

“The leader described in that quote is not looking for validation,” Khaldi says. “They are looking for reality. That is rare and it starts with a level of personal security that most leaders never develop because they confuse confidence with certainty.

“Real confidence says: ‘I do not need to be right. I need us to get it right.’”

“It takes a leader who treats wise counsel as decision raw-material, not as a loyalty test,” says Michael Taylor, co-founder at SchellingPoint, an applied research firm specializing in group decision-making.

“A leader who can build and actually use a wise-counsel team like that needs two things: humility and method,” he adds.

Taylor explains each of those key needs and checkpoints:

“Humility, because they must want to be corrected more than they want to be right and be willing to update their assumptions in public, where many seek to have their views affirmed and fear being exposed as wrong in front of others,” he says.

“Method, because smart people still hold back their internal dialogue unless the leader creates real opinion safety and a disciplined way to surface, note and test what the team actually believes, including the reasoning behind disagreements.”

“It requires a leader who is confident without being rigid,” says Vardhan Kapoor, the CEO and co-founder at Firstwork, where he builds systems that help leaders run clear, accountable operations across fast-moving teams.

“Someone who cares more about getting it right more than being right. That kind of leader hires for judgment, not just skill and creates room for people to challenge assumptions without fear,” he adds.

Patience is a well-developed skill.

“They also listen and take their time before making a decision. They ask follow-up questions, they change their mind when the facts demand it and they give credit when someone’s counsel prevents a mistake,” Kapoor says.

“Over time, that tells the team that truth matters more than politics and that disagreement or different perspectives is part of doing the job well.”

“It needs a leader who is sure of what they don’t know,” asserts Adriana Rivas, the chief operating officer and chief biwitech development Officer at BIGWISE Corp. and the author of “How to Implement Self-Service Without Failing.”

“It may sound easy, but it’s not. A lot of executives say they desire honest advice, yet when someone disagrees with them, their subtle behaviors show that they are uncomfortable,” she adds. “The team sees and then stops being honest.”

Rivas explains what she’s observed, experienced and concluded.

“I learnt early on that the people closest to the problem can see things that I can’t,” she says.

Rivas suggests what is necessary to build the type of collective described at the beginning of this article.

“A leader who wants to establish a team like this must always do three things,” she says. “First, look for dissenting perspectives before making a choice, not later or as a formality. Second, say in public when input affects their direction. Saying, ‘I was going this way, but Maria’s analysis changed my mind,’ for example, establishes more trust than any retreat. Third, keep safe those who speak up. The culture of honesty falls apart right away if challengers encounter penalties, even if they are small.”

Rivas provides one example of her last point.

“I’ve been in rooms where I was the only one who said, ‘This won’t work,’ and others didn’t say anything, because people didn’t want to hear it,” she remembers.

“The leader was always the one who made the difference, not the team.”

“The short answer?” rhetorically asks Morgan Wilson, founder and director at creditte accountants & advisors. ”Someone who doesn’t need to be the smartest person in the room.”

He talks about what has impressed him in his business experiences and career.

“The leaders I’ve seen build genuinely high-counsel teams share a common trait — they’re clear on where they’re headed but they hold their assumptions loosely,'“ Wilson says. “They know that being confident doesn’t mean being certain.”

He elaborates:

“Real confidence is the willingness to stress-test your own thinking and that takes emotional maturity, more than anything else,” Wilson argues.

“Before any of that can work though, the leader has to make it safe to disagree,” he adds. “When people sense even a hint of punishment for speaking up, they go quiet. The best thinking stays locked away. Psychological safety isn’t a nice-to-have — it’s the foundation.”

Wilson has developed clarity about something else that he sees as important.

“What really separates these leaders is how completely they’ve disconnected their ego from the outcome,” he says. “They’re not trying to be right. They’re trying to make the best call for the business. When a team sees that modeled consistently, the right people naturally gravitate toward it.”

“It takes a confident, yet open leader to build and leverage a team of trusted associates,” says Christine Hayward, the executive director at IIC Partners, an executive search organization.

“Such a leader is highly aware of their own skills and value but importantly recognizes the limits of their own singular point of view,” she adds.

“They embrace truly-divergent points of view, creating a safe space for others to challenge, discuss and debate. Ultimately, they have the confidence to find a convergent path forward that may not please everyone but is forged from the individual contributions of their trusted counsel.”

“This is built on a strong leader-team dynamic,” says Carlos Hernandez, a leadership expert for individuals and organizations and president at Coach Kind.

“Leaders who take the time to understand each individual member's strengths later use them to offer wise counsel,” he adds. “Find out what each of your team members does innately well and put them in those environments as often as possible.

“Ask them questions, have them teach you, challenge them. Develop your team.

“Leaders will never get their teams to this level if they think team development comes in an easy-bake, plug-and-play format.”

There involves some work yet Hernandez points to the ROI.

“It takes more energy upfront but the payoff is worth it,” he says.

The final question revolves around how specifically a leader can reliably develop such a team to this level of respected assertiveness, honesty, trust and value.

Hayward brings up an interesting point from a different perspective as a leader in the executive search industry.

“This starts even before an individual team member is hired,” she advises. “Too often, a company will hire those with similar mindsets; people that ‘fit in’ and appear to be culturally aligned.”

Hayward shares her contrary recommendations:

“By deliberately seeking other points of view during the hiring process, a foundation is set,” she says.

“Leaders must encourage vigorous discussion and celebrate disagreement,” Hayward adds. “This can be everything from advocating for team members in front of others, building on a point of view or opinion and encouraging others to offer a counterpoint.

“Last, they must find common ground among divergent viewpoints.”

Pay attention to the micro for building and maintaining strength of a trusted counsel.

“It is built in the small moments, not the big ones,” Khaldi stresses as important.

“The team learns what is truly safe to say by watching what happens the first time someone disagrees,” he points out. “If the leader listens fully, asks a genuine follow-up question and later credits that counsel openly, the team registers that honesty is not just tolerated, it is valued.”

What happens next is not surprising.

“Do that consistently and trust compounds,” Khaldi asserts, offering a warning as well. “Skip it once with defensiveness or dismissal and the team quietly recalibrates what they will say next time.”

When a leader can show poise, humility and curiosity, that will positively impact the small collective that they have created and developed.

“The leader must model vulnerability before they can expect honesty,” Khaldi says. “When a leader says openly ‘I was wrong about this,’ or ‘I did not see that coming,’ they give the entire team permission to operate without the armor of self-protection.

“That is when the team stops managing upward and starts actually thinking together,” he adds. “The result is not just a better team, it is a leader who makes fewer catastrophic decisions because reality reaches them unfiltered.”

Thinking big picture regarding your people is a smart decision process.

“A true leader gives people the confidence to suggest new ideas that might even be radically different to their own,” says Sarah T. Davies, a content and communication executive.

“That doesn't mean you have to act on them but you need to hear them,” she adds. “Why? Because it empowers your staff, makes them feel validated and creates a culture of ideas.”

The Conscious Environment and Counsel Culture

“A leader builds that kind of team by making candor safe and useful,” Taylor says.

“Safe means people learn, through repeated experience, that disagreeing won’t cost them attacks, retaliation, status, access or opportunities.

“Useful means the leader does turn what the team says into better decisions in a visible, disciplined way.

“Over time, that combination creates trust faster than any team-building exercise.”

Recruiting Differently

Taylor says assembling the counsel is better when it’s pursued in a different way.

“They don’t recruit for ‘chemistry’ so much as for independent judgment and they make the implicit contract explicit: ‘your job here is to surface what you actually believe — especially assumptions, goals, barriers and unintended consequences — and help us test it,’” he advises.

Building a Counsel That Will Stimulate Discussion

“A leader invites feedback early and responds with critical thought and grace when someone disagrees,” Kapoor says.

“Trust grows when leaders are clear about what success looks like and honest about what is not working, including when what they’re doing is not working,” he adds.

Strength comes in a package that doesn’t always been strong.

“They’re humble, flexible, honest with themselves. When an executive or myself admits uncertainty or error, it lowers the cost for others to speak honestly,” Kapoor says.

“When we close the loop and explain what has been decided and why, people feel their counsel was taken seriously, even if it was not adopted.”

Leading the Process

Rivas talks about her approach for inspiring engagement.

“I'd go into planning meetings and say, ‘I don't know how this should work in this market. What do you see that I don't,’” she says.

“Then I would have to deal with the pain of being quiet. At first, no one believed me; they assumed I was lying. Leaders in the past taught them to say what the boss wanted to hear.”

The Need for Sufficient, Emotional Regulation

“When a leader is curious instead of defensive when faced with painful truths, it adds to the team's emotional bank account,” Rivas says.

“On the other hand, even a small consequence for being honest, like a sigh or body language, takes away from it,” she says as a warning. “The team will either trust you enough to tell you when you make a mistake or they won't. You won't know which decisions need to be halted if they don't.”

Discovery, Over Time, for Risk Management

Leaders will learn what has most commonly advanced the mission and protected it and the people involved.

“The best teams I've formed are the ones where people feel free to tell me when I'm about to make a mistake,” Rivas says. “It didn't happen because I asked for it; it happened because I kept showing that it was safe.”

Make It Noticeable, When Warranted

Wilson points out the need for courage, ease of communicating truth and commitment to the smartest decision and it being helpful to relationship capital.

“When they openly admit uncertainty in a meeting, when they ask hard questions they don't already have the answer to and when they visibly shift direction because someone pushed back with a better idea, the team starts to recalibrate,” he says.

“They realize honesty isn't career-limiting here. It's actually valued.”

This Changes the Counsel Response

“The culture then sets itself through patterns,” Wilson adds.

“A team member challenges a strategy and gets thanked for it, rather than quietly excluded from the next conversation. That gets noticed.

“Contribution and thinking get recognized over compliance. That gets noticed too. Slowly, assertiveness stops feeling risky and starts feeling expected.”

He says there is a moment to look for because it’s a positive sign.

“The real turning point,” Wilson argues, “is when the team stops managing upward and starts protecting the business. When that happens, you haven't just built camaraderie. You've built something genuinely rare.”

Share

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits)

Subscribe now

Communication Intelligence, a magazine on another platform from 2021-24 and a newsletter on Substack, from 2023- present, is a publication of interviews turned into current event analysis, examinations of important quotes from leaders, features, reports — and a collection of contributed Insights & Advisory.

There is additionally a LinkedIn company page for the newsletter.

It’s the norm for more people than not to say, “that’s not who I am,” when they communicate about errors with their decision making and behavior. It’s almost expected, especially with public apologies.

Curt Cignetti, however, recently chose a different response.

The head football coach at the University of Indiana, who captained a made-for-a-movie story of winning a national championship in just his second year at the school, with a program that was historically bad-to-terrible, spoke in an interview about something he may have been able to do better.

Watching the video, he didn’t look entirely comfortable confessing that last sentence but he did it anyway. However, he didn’t claim, “That’s not who I am.”

Now, this well never get the widespread attention and likability as his famous, “Simple, I win. Google me,” comment, yet it’s more important.

What many people who communicate, “That’s not who I am,” don’t realize is that it isn’t a claim that the majority of people, especially critics, believe. It lacks credibility.

“People see that as untrustworthy because it is a lie,” asserts Michael Amory, a clinical therapist who operates and owns a mental health private practice, Catalyst Therapy.

“We are our actions.”

Amort points to speaker and author James Clear, who wrote, Atomic Habits, to expand on his point

“He has this great quote I often refer patients to: ‘Every action you take is a vote for the type of person you wish to become,’” Amory says. “The person you are is the person that exists in real life, not the idealized version in your head.”

He explains what is happening when defensiveness isn’t aligning with reality.

“The phrase ‘that’s not who I am,’ inherently distances you from your actions and abdicates responsibility and we generally don’t like people who refuse to take responsibility for their actions,” Amory details.

“A person who doesn’t take responsibility is a future liability.”

“The statement is widely seen as untrustworthy because it attempts to separate identity from behavior, and credibility depends on their alignment,” says Tyler Butler, founder and CEO at Collaboration for Good, where she guides Fortune 100 companies and startups in advancing strategic communications, sustainability and social impact.

“Trust forms when what people say about themselves matches what others experience. When someone insists, ‘that’s not who I am,’ they signal a desire to be evaluated by intention rather than impact, creating a gap between their self‑description and their actions.”

That leaves a different impression than intended and known to the communicator.

“Audiences interpret this as self‑protection rather than accountability,” Butler says. “Instead of addressing harm, the speaker centers their own discomfort — and attempts to preserve their self‑image.”

She provides an example:

“In corporate responsibility and sustainability, this same pattern appears when organizations distance themselves from negative outcomes by claiming they are ‘not reflective of our values,’” Butler points out.

"‘That's not who I am,’” is a cop out; it is denying or at best, minimizing the mistake or inappropriateness they committed,” says Nancy Irwin, a licensed clinical psychologist.

“Yes, it is quite common, particularly for those who have been unwilling to look in the proverbial mirror and be honest and live in integrity.”

Yet there are people, like Cignetti in the moment mentioned above, who are willing to communicate differently.

“Wise people will acknowledge the dark parts when they do something they regret later,” Irwin says.

Cignetti worked through the discomfort of being asked about previous rough communication and others seeing him as “cocky and abrasive.” He fully claimed how he came across when he said, “I did it, I own it,” and “Is that who I am? Well, I guess, it’s part of who I am, because I did it.”

That’s uncommon, rare even.

There is emotional and psychological development that has taken place, even if subconscious, she says.

“By acknowledging that behavior and identity are connected, they removed the need to argue with reality,” Butler says. “This reflects a mature understanding of trust: credibility grows when people confront discomfort directly, rather than attempting to rewrite the narrative.”

She has witnessed, learned and addressed this as well.

“In sustainability and leadership work, the most trusted voices are those who integrate missteps into their learning, rather than deny them,” Butler says.

Irwin recognizes what a person who can be this forthright has accomplished.

“Evolved people who have done work on themselves to heal and learn and grow are certainly capable of self-awareness and can be responsible, admit they did something out of line, criminal, inappropriate and apologize, make proper restitutions and move forward,” she says.

“Claiming a mistake or poor choice shows responsibility and willingness to learn from that choice and improve.”

Amory too points to the development of the mind with people taking ownership.

This brings up the question what would assist more people to demonstrate this level of self-awareness, courage and honesty, especially in front of many.

“Seeing others in the public eye doing it,” Amory says.

“Dan Harmon, a famous TV writer, comes to mind. His apology a few years back went viral and inspired quite a few people.

“Also reminding ourselves that admitting to a bad action does not mean admitting to being a bad person who is irredeemable,” he points out. “That is, emotionally, what our mind jumps to out of fear.”

He talks about how to address it.

“In those moments, we need to challenge those thoughts by reminding ourselves that we are defined by actions but that a long life involves countless actions.

“Actions we get to decide and if we make enough good ones, they will outweigh the bad in the final calculations of a life.”

Irwin points to professional help.

“There is a powerful therapeutic modality created by the brilliant Dr. Richard Schwarz, called IFS — Internal Family Systems — that blends and heals those dark parts, allowing them to cooperate with the ‘light,’ appropriate, healthy parts.

“It is built on compassion and curiosity versus shame, blame and denial.”

“People are more capable of this kind of honesty when they have a clear internal values framework, operate in environments where accountability is treated as a responsibility rather than a risk, and maintain a reflective practice that helps them understand their own patterns, without collapsing into defensiveness,” Butler says.

“That ability to own one’s actions while remaining oriented toward growth is the foundation of trust in effective communication, leadership and social responsibility.”

Share

Subscribe for free (or paid, for benefits)

Subscribe now

Follow on LinkedIn for more

Communication Intelligence began as online magazine (2021-2024) on another platform and during that time, also became a free-or-paid newsletter (2023 - present) on Substack. The C.I. brand additionally offers individuals and organizations a variety of services, from written communications as well as communication consulting and coaching.

The newsletter is written by a former newspaper reporter, magazine writer, talk show host and communications consultant and advisor.

If you’re interested, Communication Intelligence also offers services. Don’t see what you need or want? Send a message to start a conversation.

It’s a reasonable question and it inspired agreement and debate.

Banjia is talking about, we can presume, erroneous and false assumptions, not ones that are factual, with evidence and proof, and beyond reasonable arguments.

"We all carry conversations differently, which means, some of us will ask clarifying questions while others will make assumptions about what the message is,” explains Maritza Mikolich, PsyD, a licensed marriage and family therapist (LMFT) and practice owner.

“Unconsciously we can carry out conversations, initiate, ignore or dismiss messages based on our beliefs,” she adds.

It’s not just what we’re communicating.

“Most communication problems don’t actually come from saying the wrong words,” says Lindsay O’Shea, a clinical psychologist, coach and the founder at UnPattern, where she focuses on helping people understand the invisible patterns that quietly shape how they communicate, connect and relate, often without realizing it.

“They come from the assumptions we bring into conversations without even realizing it. All of us have patterns in how we think, feel and respond to others.

“These patterns usually form when we’re kids, based on our early relationships. That’s when we learn things like whether it’s safe to speak up, whether people listen to us, and what we expect from connection.”

It’s logical that these would take deep root in our cognitive processing.

“That’s why, during conversations, many people are already thinking about what they’re going to say next instead of really hearing the other person.”

That, of course, creates problems; sometimes, significant ones.

“When we don’t question our assumptions, conversations turn into guessing games,” O’Shea says. “We think we know what someone means, yet we hear only parts of what they say or we jump to conclusions.”

That’s not all.

“We stop being curious and start looking for proof that we’re right,” she adds. “This leads to misunderstandings, hurt feelings and missed chances to truly connect.”

The reality?

“We all harbor unconscious biases… These biases live below conscious awareness and while they sometimes make us jerks, the brain evolved them for efficiency and safety. Accuracy…less important,” says Oriana Sparks, who teaches organizations, individuals and teams how to use calm as a strategic leadership advantage.

“They help us make rapid sense of a complex social world, but they do so by generalizing, categorizing and predicting, often imperfectly.

“Assumptions are the expressions of those unconscious biases happening in real time.”

There are a variety of ways we fall into this natural thinking.

“We assume ‘meaning’ based on our family dynamics, previous workplaces, old power struggles, cultural conditioning… the list goes on,” Sparks says. “We assume the intent of the other person — this one is particularly dangerous — perhaps, we assume they are being defensive, disengaged or disrespectful, when in reality they may simply be overwhelmed, uncertain or protecting themselves.”

There is something that might surprise us and other people to learn and remember.

“Our assumptions are about us and have almost nothing to do with the other person, though we will vehemently insist they do,” Sparks says. “More damaging still, is that our assumptions, all wrapped up in our own flaws and traumas, very directly diminish the current state, emotions and intentions of the other person.

“This makes effective communication, and therefore relationship-building, very challenging.”

The flaw is our weakened or missing poise, patience and ability to be humble when triggered.

“Our assumptions distort listening and cause us to hear though filters instead of presence,” Sparks says.

“Often when someone offends us, we are responding to stories we’ve invented rather than what’s actually happening. Given that moment-to-moment presence is at an all-time low, I would argue that this is the greatest communications plague of our time.”

“Language is never neutral. The words we choose carry both histories and context, our own and others,” he asserts. “So when I speak of ‘excellence’ or ‘trust,’ I'm not transmitting universally-understood, neutral concepts. My words will be received differently depending on what those terms have meant in listener's life.

There is a misunderstanding, maybe more than one, taking place.

“The most common (assumption) is assuming the other person shares our context, our values, our sensitivity,” Malatesta says, warning, “It's hardly ever the case."

There’s another one he’s noticed and learned.

“Mistaking our clarity for theirs,” Malatesta adds. “What someone hears is shaped by their genetics, upbringing and experiences. The words are the smallest part.”

“Very often, we have more biases than we are aware of,” says Ramiro Castano, a licensed marriage and family therapist (LMFT) and owner at Find Your Relationship.

“Many people erroneously believe many subjective things are objective, including the meaning of words,” he points out. “Take something as simple as the world ‘respect.’ While the word has a definition in the dictionary, if you ask 5 different people how to show someone ‘respect,’ you are going to get 5 different answers. The same is true in inverse with the word ‘disrespect.’

“They will mean different things to different people but quite often, we carry the assumption that when we use a word, the person who we’re talking to is going to understand that word in the same way we do, which often isn’t the case.”

Knowing this, risks become more apparent in our minds.

“We think they’ll ‘get’ what we mean,” Castano says. “These differences are prevalent with many words all around us and those differences are going to be even more pronounced when the conversation is emotionally charged.

“What ends up happening often is that the message we give is not the message the other person receives.”

“More often than not, our unconscious or implicit bias is what steers things in the not-so-helpful direction,” says Sage Breslin, PhD, a transformational psychologist and coach and the CEO at the Sage Wisdom Institute.

“Implicit bias is what we develop as a result of our experience: sometimes positive and more often than not, negative,” she adds. “Because much of experience is non-verbal or visceral, we imprint it that way. We unconsciously store it in our bodies and our behavior towards others may reflect that bias when triggered.”

There must exist a reliable way to recognize our problematic assumptions and enter and participate in communication in a more poised, skillful manner for improved effective communication and interactions.

A Reliable Response Strategy

“They key is noticing those signals and creating a pause,” Sparks advises.

“The pause is the skill. It interrupts reactivity and restores the power of choice.”

She explains why:

Greater self awareness is not a “nice-to-have” skill. It’s invaluable for communication with ourselves and interacting better with others.

“One way to identify our assumptions is by being aware of our own biases and belief systems,” Mikolich says. “It is important to ask ourselves, ‘is what I am thinking true or am I speculating this to be true?’”

That may be quickly dismissed by us yet it’s important to realize its value.

“Being an effective communicator is a key ingredient to being in a healthy relationship,” Mikolich says.

“A reliable way is to slow the conversation down, especially inside your own mind,” O’Shea counsels. “Most unhelpful assumptions show up as quick reactions: a spike of defensiveness, an urge to explain yourself or a strong feeling that you already know what the other person means.

“Those moments are clues. Instead of treating them as facts, you can treat them as signals that an assumption may be running the show.”

She outlines what might prove more beneficial for us.

“You can ask yourself simple questions like: ‘What did they actually say? What am I assuming they meant? Is there another possible explanation?'“ O’Shea says.

Learning that premature reactions, even before communication, can be, at least at times, detrimental to our own interests, is vital.

“Entering communication skillfully also means leading with curiosity instead of certainty,” O’Shea says. “When you’re unsure, asking a clarifying question or reflecting back what you heard keeps the conversation grounded in reality rather than guesswork.”

She explains why.

“It shows respect for the other person and reduces the chances of misunderstanding. You’re no longer trying to win the conversation, you’re trying to understand it,” O’Shea says.

She elaborates:

Castano asserts that mutually establishing what is and isn’t can be helpful.

“I think it starts with trying to really identify our potential biases, especially those that are actually subjective and not objective. If something can be agreed or disagreed with, it’s very much subjective, an opinion, where as something that cannot be disagreed with is objective, as a fact.

“Anything that states a judgement: good or bad, right or wrong, etc., will always be subjective to individuals. Once we’ve identified these things for ourselves, we have to realize that whoever we talk to may not agree or understand what we’re trying to say just because it makes sense to us.

“It then helps, while in conversation, to be asking yourself, ‘If I say this in this way, what could the other person hear,’ and then clarify or extrapolate more of what you are trying to say to avoid the possible misunderstanding. Spell it out.

“And if someone uses a word like ‘respect,’ ask ‘what do you mean by that?’ so that you’re not assuming they mean what you think they mean.”

Work with the Reality and Look Inward at First

“It's impossible to fully identify our assumptions beforehand,” Malatesta says.

“What we can do is notice when a conversation isn't landing and consider the possibility that it is about what we said and how we said it, rather than evidence that the other person is the problem.”

A Better Way Once an Interaction Takes an Unwanted Turn

“When someone reacts unexpectedly, the instinct is to explain ourself again,” Malatesta says.

That natural default reaction isn’t useful.

Less Confidence is Sometimes a Positive

“Another useful practice is to enter conversations with less certainty,” he says.

“Not false modesty but openness to the possibility that you're missing something, that the conversation is not closed after the first utterance.

“When we hold our view lightly, we also tend to listen differently,” Malatesta says.

“We stop scanning for immediate and absolute agreement — does it ever happen? — and start noticing what the other person is actually trying to tell us.”

Share

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

Subscribe now

Follow on LinkedIn for more

Communication Intelligence began as online magazine (2021-2024) on another platform and during that time, also became a free-or-paid newsletter (2023 - present) on Substack. The C.I. brand additionally offers individuals and organizations a variety of services, from written communications as well as communication consulting and coaching.

The newsletter is written by a former newspaper reporter, magazine writer, talk show host and communications consultant and advisor.

If you’re interested, Communication Intelligence also offers services. Don’t see what you need or want? Send a message to start a conversation.

Some people show a greater, almost unimaginable capacity for perseverance and it leads them to where other people don’t reach. What drives it seems like a mystery.

“I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work,” said Thomas Edison, world-famous inventor, businessman and industrialist whose work paved the way for electricity, recorded sound and motion pictures.

There has to be a specific strength as an impetus for that level of unwavering commitment to endure long-lasting struggle, disappointment, frustration and dejection.

Most people don’t want to remain engaged in repeated, long-suffering dead ends.

This two-question, multi-source examination goes in depth about what helps people weather the repeated failed experiments of “ways that won’t work” and what the line is for continuing or ending a pursuit.

“People don’t persevere because they enjoy struggle or because they are unusually motivated,” says Emir Baycan, cognitive decision-making researcher and founder at What’s Your IQ. “They persist when failure continues to teach them something.”

“As long as effort produces insight, even small or incremental insight, the struggle feels meaningful, rather than pointless.”

Baycan points to the visionary and inventor and what he sees from him.

“Edison’s persistence makes sense when you see failure as information, rather than defeat,” he says. “Each attempt narrowed the space of what could work. That changes how frustration is experienced. Instead of feeling like wasted effort, it becomes part of a learning process.”

There’s an additional psychological component that is important.

“Another factor is how people frame progress internally,” Baycan adds.

“Those who last tend to track progress by what they understand better, not by how close they are to success,” he explains. “When progress is defined only by outcomes, most people quit early. When it’s defined by learning, persistence becomes psychologically sustainable.”

The vividness of the end goal matters.

“What drives that kind of perseverance isn’t usually ego or blind optimism, it’s purpose. People who endure long periods of struggle tend to care deeply about the problem they’re trying to solve, not just the outcome,” says Pallavi Pande, founder at DTOCS, which creates compostable tableware for events and founder at DTOCS Consulting, which helps brands grow on Amazon.

“When the work itself feels meaningful, setbacks don’t feel like dead ends; they feel like part of the process,” she adds.

“I’ve noticed that people who keep going also separate failure from self-worth. They don’t see a setback as a personal verdict. They see it as feedback. That mindset makes it easier to stay curious instead of discouraged.”

Fully grasping a certain reality and making peace with it can empower commitment.

“There’s also a quiet resilience that comes from accepting that progress is rarely neat or fast,” Pande says. “Perseverance often comes from understanding that frustration is not a sign to stop but a sign that you’re learning something new.”

“The drive to push through such long-lasting challenges isn't just about being optimistic; it's really about what we call ‘Epistemic Curiosity,’ that deep-seated urge to figure out something unknown,” says Suzann Robins, a social science professor, relationship and health therapist and the author of “Exploring Intimacy: Cultivating Healthy Relationships through Insight and Intuition.”

She elaborates:

“Take an innovator like Edison, for instance. When he faced a ‘failed’ experiment, he didn't let frustration get the best of him. Instead, he experienced a rush of dopamine from eliminating a variable.

“Failure wasn't a personal indictment of his skills; it was just another piece of data. This separation of one's identity from the outcome is what keeps disappointment at bay.

”When the goal is to uncover a truth instead of just snagging a quick win, the struggle transforms into a vital part of the research journey rather than a hurdle to overcome.”

It’s valuable to question the importance of value of the outcome and the endeavor it takes to get there.

“When you remove people’s ego and social pressures, perseverance, in my opinion, comes down to the question: Is the fundamental problem I’m solving, still worth solving?” says Andy Wright, co-founder at Resnova.io, a specialist insurance consulting firm that provides strategic, regulatory, and operational expertise.

It’s a point on which Guery Cordovadisla, co-founder at Domepeace, a direct-to-consumer scalp-care brand built for bald men, agrees.

“When the problem matters, setbacks feel like information, instead of personal failure.

“Also look for small proof. One customer paying. One repeat order. One sign that something improved. Those small signals are enough to keep going, even when progress feels slow.”

Cordovadisla talks about a particular technique that is necessary.

“The other factor is emotional distance,” he says. “The people who endure don’t say ‘I failed.’ They say ‘that attempt didn’t work.’ That mindset keeps them in the game long enough for things to compound.”

“At sea, failure is constant: weather shifts, supplies run out, plans collapse,” says Victoria Vanransom, yacht chef and author of “The Captain’s Cook.”

“You learn quickly that perseverance isn’t heroic. It’s practical. You adjust, you solve the next problem and you keep moving because stopping isn’t an option.”

Then there is optimism, even if critics often call it blind in nature.

“… our grounded faith in ourself and the belief that things will be better lights the fire that failure or rejection tries to blow out,” says Adrian Jr. A. Maronilla, a content specialist at 20four7VA, a virtual staffing leader.

“You know what’s failure? It’s quitting and not trying at all.”

It's popular among many respected business minds to say that you have to know when to quit and that too many people go on too long, emotionally and financially, entrapping themselves in the sunk-cost fallacy.

These successful people likely, predictably, probably would have scoffed at Edison for not quitting and moving on to more profitable work.

The debate is the line where balance lies, where persevering could be the smart play and worthwhile for an organizational mission, societal benefit or oneself and when is the probability lower that the efforts are chasing will produce sustained breakthrough.

“The real distinction is not between quitting and persisting but between learning and repeating,” Baycan suggests. “Perseverance makes sense when continued effort keeps changing your understanding of the problem. It stops making sense when effort produces the same failure for the same reasons.”

He delves deeper.

“Sunk cost fallacy isn’t about staying too long,” he insists. “It’s about staying without reflection. People fall into it when they continue purely because of past investment, not because new information is emerging.”

Baycan points to Edison as an example as to why he was never stuck in that error.

His “work would have crossed into irrational persistence only if his experiments stopped revealing anything new. They didn’t. His process remained informative,” Baycan states.

“The balance point is reached when feedback flattens, assumptions stop changing and effort no longer improves understanding. At that point, quitting is not failure. It’s accurate judgment.”

Pande is in alignment with that logic.

“Persevering makes sense when each attempt brings clearer insight, sharper strategy or a better understanding of what actually works, even if results are slow,” she says.

“Breakthroughs tend to happen after thoughtful adjustments, not stubborn repetition.”

It’s clear to her when continuing is sheer emotional investment.

“It becomes a sunk cost problem when someone keeps going without adapting, ignoring consistent feedback or sacrificing their health, values or stability just to avoid admitting something isn’t working,” Pande says.

“Quitting isn’t failure when it’s a deliberate decision based on evidence and reflection. The real risk isn’t stopping too soon, it’s continuing without honesty.

“Perseverance with awareness can change outcomes; perseverance without reflection usually just delays a necessary pivot.”

“The smartest people I know quit things all the time, they know which things to walk away from,” argues Wright. “They are ruthless about cutting losses on something that won’t deliver and focus their attention elsewhere.

“Too many people, however, don’t quit, as they’re afraid of their ego being bruised, and (them being) classified as a failure.”

Yes and no, Vanransom has learned.

“If effort is still teaching you something about yourself, your limits, your capabilities then perseverance has value,” she says, “But when you’re repeating the same actions out of fear, pride or obligation, that’s not resilience; that’s avoidance.”

She speaks of what she has witnessed in her work.

“At sea, you don’t argue with conditions you can’t change. You change course. That mindset applies everywhere. The breakthrough isn’t always pushing harder.”

What Counts

“The balance comes down to signals and control,” argues Cordovadisla.

“Persevering makes sense when the problem is real, people are willing to pay and each attempt teaches you something useful. Even small improvements count if the direction is clear.

“It becomes chasing a dead end when nothing changes. No repeat customers. No organic interest. No learning. Just the same results with more effort and a new story each month to explain them.”

He speaks beyond the problem to a helpful exercise.

“A simple test is this: are you improving the inputs you control and is the market responding at all? “ Cordovadisla recommends examining and asking.

“If yes, keep going. If not, it’s usually smarter to change direction or stop before time and money are gone.”

“The key lies in understanding the ‘Quality of the Failure,’” Robins says.

“If you find yourself failing in the same way, over and over, it’s a sign you might be stuck in a sunk cost fallacy or just lacking creativity. On the flip side, if each failure brings something new to the table and helps you map out the problem differently, then sticking with it is the way to go.

“It’s important to know when to walk away, especially if the data shows that your main idea just isn’t holding up. But as long as you’re uncovering fresh insights about why things aren’t working, keep pushing forward.”

There’s exciting potential in doing the latter she teaches.

“Often, the real breakthroughs are just beyond a ‘plateau of latent potential,’ where the small wins might not be obvious to everyone else but are clear as day to the innovator,” Robins says.

Share

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits)

Subscribe now

Follow on LinkedIn for more

Communication Intelligence began as online magazine (2021-2024) on another platform and during that time, also became a free-or-paid newsletter (2023 - present) on Substack. The C.I. brand additionally offers individuals and organizations a variety of services, from written communications as well as communication consulting and coaching.

The newsletter is written by a former newspaper reporter, magazine writer, talk show host and communications consultant and advisor.

We may or may not know which experiences in our lives have-and-still affect our emotions, psychology, actions and well-being.

“The past is never the past. It is always present,” musician Bruce Springsteen has said. ”And you better reckon with it in your life and in your daily experience or it will get you. It will get you really bad.”

Josh Gratsch, a behavioral health technology CEO and the writer of the Pursuing Pragmatic Leadership newsletter on Substack, also communicated this reality recently.

“… my nervous system has been clinging onto unresolved issues from the past, manifesting in ways I had no idea were connected,” he learned and wrote.

“I’m not fooling myself into believing I fully know myself now. There’s always more to uncover. That is the work. That is the path. No expectation of attainment — just consistent progress. Layer after layer of understanding.”

One might wonder whether what Springsteen asserted and Gratsch added are absolutely, mostly or sometimes true.

“They say that an elephant never forgets. Neither do we,” says Anju Uddin, a psychotherapist and co-founder at So You Need Therapy clinic.

“All of our experiences make their sometimes-unnoticed impressions on our nervous system,” she adds.

Our reactions may not always be in alignment with the current reality.

“We have an amazingly sensitive threat-detection system that often produces false alarms,” Uddin explains. “We get triggered by things that aren’t actually dangerous because they remind our nervous systems of something that was and maybe could again be dangerous, invoking the same amount of fear, anger, guilt or shame as that past event warranted.”

She explains something we may not be aware of, especially in any given moment.

“Our emotions respond far more quickly than our thoughts and before we can think of what to say, our bodies are already responding to the perceived threat,” Uddin says. “And, “Sometimes, our reactions land us in trouble.”

Melina Alden, a licensed psychotherapist, says there is important nuance to consider.

“The past does live on in us, through emotional patterns, relational expectations, nervous system responses and the meanings we’ve made of our experiences,” she says.

“Unprocessed or unexamined experiences and emotions tend to show up indirectly: in what we avoid, what feels disproportionately painful, the relationship patterns we repeat or the defenses we rely on without realizing it.

She offers encouragement.

“It isn’t true in a rigid or fatalistic way,” Alden says. “The past doesn’t ‘get you’ as a punishment, nor does everyone need to unpack every detail of their history to live well.”

The reality is that it is not uncommon for people to have worked through their harder and hardest moments.

The objective, Alden says, is to recognize how the past impacts us.

This can be done, “When we bring curiosity and compassion to these patterns,” and when we do, “the past loosens its grip.

“It becomes part of our story rather than the author of our present.”

She offers a reframing of the pain and trauma we’ve experienced.

“The past shows up but not as a threat,” Alden says. “More as an invitation.”

“Reckoning with the past doesn’t mean being consumed by it; it means allowing it to be seen, understood and integrated, so it no longer has to speak so loudly through our lives.”

People may feel that that they have finally progressed past pain and trauma.

That might not be fully accurate for every person.

“Even when people think they’ve moved on, old wounds often show up as anxiety, depression, relationship struggles or self-doubt,” says Anneli Kumpula, a family and psychiatric nurse practitioner and the co-founder at Elevate Hospice.

“That said, the past doesn’t have to run your life forever. When people do the work to understand and heal it, it can lose its grip.”

“This is absolutely true,” contends Ramiro Castano, a marriage and family therapist, of what Springsteen stated. “The idea that we can leave the past in the past is a total myth and our ‘past’ influences our daily lives constantly, most of the time without us even knowing it.”

“For instance, if I’m going to cross a street, I’m going to check to make sure a bus isn’t coming before I cross. However, I’m going to check a little bit differently if I’ve been hit by a bus before,” Castano says.

“Now, there’s the idea that with enough healing, we can leave the past behind us, but let me show you how that does not work. Pretend for a second that you’ve burned your hand really badly on a gas stove right as the stove came on.

“Over time you can put medicine on that burn and use bandages and with enough time and effort, the burn will heal to the point that you can touch the burn spot without it hurting because it’s now a scar.

“So, at this point the healing has happened. Now, what happens if at some point in the future — let’s say 10 years from now — you happen to find yourself near another gas stove, one that’s never burned you before and the ‘clicking’ sound starts, meaning the stove is about to come on.

“What are you and anyone else in the same shoes, going to do in that situation?” he rhetorically asks.

“You’re going to pull your hand back so fast that you’ll punch yourself in the face,” Castano answers. “That hand pulling will be much faster than it would be for someone that has never been burned before.”

In brief, he teaches what naturally takes place.

We’re impacted by the past more than we realize,

“We’re all out there behaving in avoiding pain,” Castano says. “This is 100% true for absolutely everyone and it plays out in relationships in an unbelievably predictive way.”

“I think many people assume that if they’re not actively dwelling on the past, then it no longer matters. The deeper truth is that the past often operates implicitly rather than explicitly. It lives in the body, in emotional reflexes, in our assumptions about love, safety, conflict and worth.”

Did you know… “unacknowledged pain seeks expression,” Alden says.

“When it isn’t recognized, it tends to emerge sideways: through anxiety, control, GI (tract) issues, skin problems, numbness, people-pleasing, anger or repeating familiar relationship dynamics.”

Fear doesn’t have to control us when we look back to solve for now.

“Reckoning with the past doesn’t have to mean reliving trauma or assigning blame,” Alden says. “It can mean developing awareness of how earlier experiences shaped your inner world. Once something becomes conscious, you gain choice. You can respond instead of react. You can decide whether an old strategy still serves you.”

There is more:

There is danger to consider.

She says its’ beneficial to know that signals are present for us to begin to understand.

“Our past doesn’t vanish just because we stop thinking about it, Kumpula says.

“It keeps whispering through our feelings, choices and relationships. When we’re willing to face it with honesty and compassion, it stops running the show and we finally get to live more freely.”

Being more conscious can give us invaluable insight and control.

“Greater awareness of our bodily processes can buy us the time to slow things down and ask, ‘What is really going on here? Is this dangerous to me? Or does it just remind me of something (that) was, in fact, dangerous?” Uddin says.

“I call this ‘everyday mindfulness.’ Meditation, critical reflection and somatic awareness techniques can help us with that.”

She talks about the challenges that are common in everyday interactions.

“Most of us live with words, people and situations that trigger difficult memories,” Uddin says. “The good news is that we can learn to become less reactive and navigate everyday life more successfully.”

Share

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

Subscribe now

Follow on LinkedIn for more

Communication Intelligence began as online magazine (2021-2024) on another platform and during that time, also became a free-or-paid newsletter (2023 - present) on Substack. The C.I. brand additionally offers individuals and organizations a variety of services, from written communications as well as communication consulting and coaching.

The newsletter is written by a former newspaper reporter, magazine writer, talk show host and communications consultant and advisor.

CEOs looking to learn from the best of each other is a smart idea. It isn’t always simple to pull off in practice though yet when it happens, the benefits could be substantial.

Diane Brady, author and editor of Fortune’s CEO Daily newsletter, recently wrote about it, telling the story of when “Walmart CEO Doug McMillon spent time mentoring Carla Vernón, CEO of The Honest Company,” which went so well for her that “Vernón wishes more CEOs would do likewise.”

A thank you to David Murray’s always excellent Executive Communication Report (free to subscribe) for highlighting that story for Communication Intelligence to notice.

“Instead of talking about the business that her $383 million-a-year company does with the $704 billion-a-year Walmart, she took a different tack:

A bold ask, one that would prove to result in an outcome beyond what she imagined.

“McMillon shared his email with Vernón, who’d been CEO since 2023, and told her to get in touch,” Brady wrote.

“I thought it would be like a Zoom call, but he invited me to come to Bentonville with one of my leaders and set up an entire day of one-on-ones for us,” Vernón said.

“He connected us with everybody who we needed to know strategically, everybody on his executive team who he thought might be able to help me build a strong executive team in the C-Suite. There was no agenda and this was Q4, which is the season for retailers that’s super busy.”

She recognized the value of what she had been given and the opportunity before her.

“If I can, for one day, watch what the very best at what they do do, then I’m going to forever realize what’s possible from myself as a leader,” Vernón said of her philosophy.

If this was of great value to one CEO, maybe it could be for others. A question is what specifically could be preventing top-level leaders from creating a training ground for sharing their knowledge and decision-making processes for widespread benefit, even in a highly-competitive, self-protective landscape.

“It’s usually driven by the structure of the CEO role itself and the realities that come with it,” says Sergey Shanaev, the founder at Hiiro, a London-based startup focused on revolutionizing marathon training.

“Most CEOs live in a permanent problem-solving mode. They are simultaneously responsible for strategy, culture, performance and often, for crisis management.

“A significant part of their emotional and cognitive energy is already invested in supporting and developing leaders inside their own organizations.”

That naturally makes a CEO less accessible, he adds.

“Over time, this pulls the role inward, by design,” Shanaev says. “Even when a CEO genuinely wants to support peers, there is often very little inner space left to do it consistently and meaningfully.

“The job keeps your focus on your own company, your people and the decisions that can’t be delegated.”

“Being a CEO requires you to be accountable to the board of directors and investors, prioritizing reporting results, leaving little time for coaching,” says Lindsay Kirsh, the founder and chief strategist at Slayer Public Relations, an agency that specializes its work in the food, beverage, hospitality, wine & spirits, craft beverages and lifestyle industries.

“When everything feels mission-critical, anything that doesn’t have an immediate return can get pushed to the margins.”

There is also the reality of the humanness and bandwidth of chief executives.

“Then, there’s an emotional component,” Kirsh says. “CEOs carry a lot quietly and they’re expected to be decisive, steady and confident at all times. That expectation can make coaching feel risky. Opening up requires vulnerability and leaders who possess an ego are likely less eager to engage.”

Yet, she points out, helping other CEOs isn’t always as heavy task as it seems.

“Leaders are sometimes under the impression that mentorship requires a big commitment,” Kirsh says, “seeing it as a formal, ongoing obligation rather than what it often is: a handful of honest conversations, shared perspective and a willingness to tell the truth when it matters.

“When mentorship is framed as ‘one more thing,’ it’s easy to say ‘no.’”

“I think it’s fair to say that it’s a mix of all these factors, but there’s also a deeper psychological layer to this problem,” says Roman Eloshvili, Founder at XData Group, a B2B software development company.

“CEOs are busy, yes, there’s no denying that, but at the same time, ‘business’ often becomes a convenient, surface-level explanation and excuse.”

Eloshvili follows that bold statement with his reasoning, looking at it from a different perspective when it comes to the CEOs reaching out for learning as much as those being asked to share their processes and decision making.

“The deeper issue is that the position of CEO inherently pushes people to adhere to a certain standard: you’re expected to have answers, not questions. Because how can you lead when you don’t know what you’re doing, right?” he rhetorically asks.

“Admittedly, it doesn’t work anything like that in practice but internal perception matters a lot in this case. Asking for help from others can feel like an admission of weakness and uncertainty.

“From an emotional standpoint, that can be very hard to do. Especially when you’re a CEO responsible for decisions that affect dozens of team members and however many thousands or millions of clients you have.”

He offers a proposed solution to that difficulty.

Delving deeper into what could make it work well for the better and best CEOs to be able to impart their experiences and wisdom, the sources thought deeper.

“At a certain stage, motivation shifts,” Shanaev contends. “For many experienced CEOs, success stops being just about growth, scale or titles and becomes more about relevance and meaning.

“Supporting other CEOs offers a way to make sense of everything they have learned. Mentoring reinforces a sense of mastery: it reminds leaders that what they have built and learned still matters.”

Kirsh adds to that specific leadership thinking and philosophy.

“That kind of support doesn’t just shape better CEOs. It shapes better companies, cultures and outcomes.”

They recognize the opportunity to help others succeed.

“Eventually, the focus shifts from demonstrating skill to embracing a role of responsibility. Leaders who attain this level recognize that offering guidance, rather than merely providing strategies, constitutes a significant form of influence.”

The output isn’t one sided.

“Playing the part of mentor and coaching others shouldn’t be seen as just ‘social work’ or ‘charity,’” Eloshvili says.

“It would help if more CEOs thought of it as a source of structural growth. By helping other leaders, they contribute to the creation of stronger companies. Stronger companies, in turn, improve the entire industry they all operate in.

“And when we look at the bigger picture, healthier markets are something that everyone stands to benefit from.”

Deeper discussions are another point he strongly urges.

“More real conversations would also help. It’s one thing to discuss industry-wide trends or issues in panels during some large event but down-to-earth communication also needs to happen,” Eloshvili argues.

Another reframing would prove to be mutually beneficial, Eloshvili concludes.

“I think it’s good to think of coaching as something that can be helpful, not just to others, but to those senior CEOs as well,” he says.

There is immense value on the table for those who want some of it.

“What we truly need is to spread the culture where CEOs view mentoring as part of good leadership hygiene, not just an extra obligation,” Eloshvili stresses. “Armed with that way of thinking, we can effect better change for all industry participants.”

Share

Subscribe now

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits)

Communication Intelligence began as online magazine (2021-2024) on another platform and during that time, also became a free-or-paid newsletter on Substack. The C.I. brand additionally offers individuals and organizations a variety of services, from written communications as well as communication consulting and coaching.

The newsletter is written by a former newspaper reporter, magazine writer, talk show host and communications consultant and advisor.

Business can be a dangerous endeavor: emotionally, psychologically and financially. Identifying whom is a good bet to trust and whom isn’t may not always be clear cut.

It’s an important, determination to accurately make.

“Now, if you think you can draw up a contract that is going to work against a bad person, they’re gonna win,” he added. “But one thing, they probably enjoy litigation. ... and besides, the bad guys win that, they know more games. They may lose eventually, in a way, but it’s no way to spend your life.”

Buffett and his late vice chairman, Charlie Munger, felt so strongly about this conclusion that regardless of the business in which they involved themselves with, they made it a checkpoint to focus on character as much as competence.

The 1.25-page contract with Nebraska Furniture Mart, for example, and the absence of due diligence showed that if you trust the person’s character, extensive contractual language for protection is not critical or at least, less necessary. On the other side, if their character is questionable or poor, contracts are still fraught with risk.

“His phrase is brutally honest,” says Eran Mizrahi, CEO and co-founder at Source86, a remote global sourcing and private-label solutions company. “Contracts won’t keep you safe from unethical people. If someone is willing to act badly, they will use every contract’s gray area as a weapon.

“It’s not that they win because they are wiser or more intelligent; they do because they feel comfortable playing with those rules and taking the other person to the edge.”

“Buffett is right: a contract can’t compensate for someone who enjoys working in the shadows, bends rules for sport or treats every relationship as a negotiation to ‘win,’” says Ulrika Gustafson, an executive coach and strategic advisor to senior and Fortune 500 leaders, at Ulrika Gustafson Advisory.

Paying attention to how people conduct themselves in the details is helpful.

“People reveal themselves in the small things,” Gustafson explains. “If someone can’t stay honest, steady and respectful when the stakes are low, you should assume they’ll only be worse when the stakes are high.”

“Buffett is always worth listening to and he is right: hoping to turn bad business with a bad person into good business is an exercise in futility,” says James Chittenden, CEO and small business strategist at One Click Advisor.

“Like any toxic relationship, the bad person will give you occasional seductive flashes of reasonable and fair conduct. In the end, they will regress back to being themselves.”

Learning, before it’s too late, whom the “bad guys” are to avoid them or mitigate risk is the challenge.

“I’ve learned that the earliest warning signs are subtle,” says Wayne Elsey, the founder at Funds2Orgs, an organization that helps individuals, families and groups trade in gently worn, used and new shoes.

“There’s almost an intuitive feeling when meeting someone,” he adds. “It can be a casual disregard for commitments, constant shifting of expectations or a pattern of blaming others.

“When someone shows you their word is flexible, depending on convenience, that’s usually an indicator of how they’ll behave once the stakes get higher.”

This taught him how to protect the mission.

“The older I get, the more I trust my gut, especially out of accumulated pattern recognition,” Elsey says. “It’s the same with relationships in general, whether it’s platonic, romantic or collaborative with other businesses.

“If the partnership doesn’t feel clean from the start, it will need a lot of work later on, and that effort is something you need to weigh to see if it’s worth it.”

It Likely isn’t One Thing

“There’s not one signal, it’s a pattern,” Mizrahi says. “You can tell by how they treat sensitive information, how they deal with deadlines and how they react when you ask for transparency.

“Also, by how they treat those people who ‘are not useful for them.’ Those micro-signals say much more than any commercial pitch.”

His philosophy has been built through those experiences.

“If I find myself or anyone from my team forcing clarity, transparent communication or trust, that’s not a partner, that’s a problem building up,” Mizrahi says.

When a business decides on moving forward in a professional relationship, it’s smart to clearly determine and implement reasonable risk management practices.

He explains what that looks like:

“Schedule as many checkpoints as needed, make that part of the dynamic from day one. Limit access to critical information and split responsibilities, so that any key piece depends solely on them,” Mizrahi says. “And something really important: keep constant human contact. Conversations clear our conflicts more than any lawyer.”

Going Deeper than Leadership Contact

“There’s also the internal part: prepare your team for this type of relationship,” he adds. “Make them aware of what to expect, what to tolerate and what not to tolerate, when to raise their hand.

“A business protects itself better when the entire organization has the same radar. The relationship can work only if the north star is clear for all those involved, from the beginning.”

Determine Cost-Benefit and Put Up Fences

“Sometimes the benefits are worth the risks,” Gustafson says, which still requires that “the goal shifts from partnership to containment.”

She elaborates:

What You Don’t Do

“You don’t engage in power games, you don’t match their tactics and you don’t try to ‘fix’ their behavior,” she advises. “You stay neutral and focused on outcomes. And you make sure you’re not the only person in the room who understands what’s happening. Isolation is where risky people do the most damage.”

Know the Landscape and What Strengths You Can Show

“Moving forward is possible,” Gustafson says, “but only if you stop expecting them to change and instead, manage the conditions so they can’t pull you into the mess they create.”

Create an Added Layer of Protection

“Think like a banker and get a collateral that you can access,” Chittenden advises.

“In other words, have something that you can take and don’t be afraid to do it; there must be a substantial price for harming you. Have something that you can use.

“As a referee instructs boxers before the bout starts, protect yourself at all times.”

His conclusion is simple.

Elsey focuses on boundaries.

“For me, that means documenting communication, ensuring responsibilities are clear and maintaining control over critical matters,” he says. “The only way to safeguard our team and the establishments we serve was to build transparency into every step.”

The Cold Reality

“You can never fully shield yourself from someone who’s determined to act in bad faith,” Elsey says, “but you can make sure your values and your team aren’t sacrificed in the process. … trust your intuition.

“It’s never a bad idea to have the option to walk away if any behavior crosses a line.”

Share

Communication Intelligence began as online magazine (2021-2024) on another platform and during that time, also became a free-or-paid newsletter on Substack. The C.I. brand additionally offers individuals and organizations a variety of services, from written communications as well as communication consulting and coaching.

The newsletter is written by a former newspaper reporter, magazine writer, talk show host and communications consultant and advisor.

Subscribe now

Subscribe, free or paid (for additional benefits)

What seemed impossible in the beginning of artificial intelligence is at least now a discussion point among some chief executive officers: the technology’s potential andn impact on the role and job security.

“I think what a CEO does is maybe one of the easier things for an AI to do one day,” Google CEO Sundar Pichai said in an interview with the BBC.

He’s not the only one who has thought about it and was willing to publicly express themselves on the topic. A simple Google AI search finding revealed:

• Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO: Has repeatedly expressed his belief that AI will eventually be able to run a company better than a human. He has stated he would be “ashamed” if OpenAI is not the first major company run by an AI CEO.

• Sebastian Siemiatkowski, Klarna CEO: Wrote that AI is “capable of doing all our jobs, my own included.”

• Mo Gawdat, former Google X Chief Business Officer: Argued that “most incompetent CEOs will be replaced” by Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), which will be better at everything than most humans.

Eye opening and a lot to digest maybe for CEOs and their future.

At the present moment, without much imagination, this may seem difficult to grasp and not something which organizations, boards of directors or investors would consider giving their approval.

A two-part question could be just how likely is this to come to pass anytime soon and what time frame could CEOs and society be looking at if it’s inevitable.

Communication Intelligence discussed AI’s looming presence over the top office in organizations with three sources in this two-question, deep-dive, special report.

“Pichai’s statement says more about Silicon Valley’s philosophical understanding of the world than it does the actual nature of executive leadership,” says Bob Hutchins, a behavioral and organizational psychologist and CEO at Human Voice Media, where he helps leaders navigate opportunities and challenges related to digital technologies and human-centered approaches.

“The statement presumes that the work of a CEO can be reduced to data processing, pattern recognition and optimization. That’s a profound misunderstanding of the role.”

He elaborates as to what AI would have to be competent and better at to even be considered an alternative to top-level, human leadership.

“The primary function of a CEO is sense-making in complex, high-stakes situations,” Hutchins says. “They operate at the intersection of competing interests, cultural nuance, ethical ambiguity and the messiness of human behavior, which is difficult to quantify or algorithmically resolve.

“They make judgment calls with incomplete or conflicting data, build trust, shape culture and embody an organization’s values through their presence and relationships. Could AI perform certain aspects of a CEO’s job? Certainly: financial modeling, operational efficiency, market analysis.”

That’s not the full scope of the office’s responsibility.

He dives deeper.

He admits that the technology is already accomplishing some level of executive work.

“If the question is, how long until we see a board experiment with AI leadership structures, we’re already there,” Hutchins says. “Companies are using AI to inform strategy or run scenario planning but a fully autonomous, completely-independent AI CEO? Decades away, if ever.”

He confessed his curiosity as to why a technology leader or multiple ones, would even imply that human replacement was probable and soon to come.

“Replacing a CEO with AI is extremely unlikely, not because the technology won’t evolve, but because the CEO role is far more complex than people assume,” asserts Zivit Inbar, PhD, a non-executive director and founder at DifferenThinking, who specializes in leadership, organizational culture and responsible AI governance.

Inbar details what AI can do well and where it is incapable or insufficient.

“In my upcoming Routledge book, I explain that AI can support decision-making, provide insight and reduce information noise,” she explains. “Still, it cannot take accountability, set values, build trust or lead people. These are the foundations of good leadership and AI cannot replicate them.”

Inbar does see the capacities and benefits.

“AI will definitely reshape the CEO role but it won’t replace it anytime soon,” says Wayne Elsey, a social entrepreneur, philanthropist, author and founder at Funds2Orgs, which helps people trade in gently worn, used and new shoes.

He agrees that the technology has value yet, it’s not comprehensive.

Board of directors and investors will, of course, have a strong voice in any such debate.

“Boards need total transparency in how AI makes decisions,” Elsey says. “Clear legal and ethical frameworks and guarantees around security, culture and long-term strategy.

“We also need evidence that AI can consistently make sound decisions in real-world, human-centered situations. Until those conditions exist, AI may assist leaders, but it won’t replace them.”

The Obvious Isn’t Being Discussed

“Boards and investors need someone to hold accountable,” Inbar says. “Accountability is at the center of governance. AI cannot explain its reasoning, take responsibility or stand before a board, regulator or court. It cannot be dismissed or sanctioned.”

She adds that “for an AI CEO to even be” a possibility, “boards would need” requirements met, such as:

• Full auditability and traceability of decisions
• Clear lines of responsibility for failures
• Regulatory approval
• Evidence that AI can understand context, values, emotions, ethics and stakeholder management
• Social acceptance

“None of these conditions exist today and may never exist at the level required for CEO responsibility,” Inbar says.

It’s Not Happening

Hutchins isn’t in line with forecasting the breakthrough that the tech leaders believe is on the near horizon.

“If boards and investors were seriously considering an AI CEO, we would need to see a fundamental shift in our definitions of success and accountability,” he states.

“Boards hire CEOs today, not just for competence but for character, cultural fit and the ability to navigate unpredictable situations. They want someone who can execute a strategy but also represent the organization publicly and deal with the unexpected with resilience and ethical integrity.

“The burden would be on an AI to demonstrate all of those qualities and the bar there is impossibly high.”

Extensive and Conclusive Evidence Required

“First, boards would want proof of concept,” Hutchins says.

Reality

“Leadership is difficult to measure, especially the value of a CEO who averts a crisis or whose decisions build long-term organizational resilience, despite short-term costs,” Hutchins argues.

“Second, there are legal and regulatory issues of accountability that would need to be sorted out,” he adds.

“Our legal frameworks are predicated on human decision making and human culpability. We’re far from having those adapted for AI leaders.

Investors

“Investors would demand transparency, they would want to understand the decision-making process of the AI, not just accept it as a black box. That runs counter to many advanced AI systems, which are not easily explainable,” Hutchins says.

“If you can’t explain why an AI recommended a strategic merger or a series of layoffs, then you have a governance issue. Boards have fiduciary responsibilities which they cannot outsource to systems they do not understand.”

The People Truth

“There is the human element,” Hutchins says. “Organizations are human systems.”

AI is not necessarily an improvement over people as CEOs.

Priorities

“We’d need a shift in investor priorities,” Hutchins begins. “While investors care about returns, they also care about risk, reputation and long term sustainability.

“An AI CEO might optimize for short term gains while neglecting aspects like cultural health or ethical considerations that don’t directly impact the bottom line.

“Investors would need to be assured that an AI could balance these factors in ways that align with broader human values.”

What If, Though: AI in the Role of CEO

“We would need AI systems that can convincingly demonstrate adaptability, not just mimicry of pattern recognition,” Hutchins argues.

This means further technology development maybe and definitely an adjusted way of thinking and process.

“We would need new governance models to accommodate these hybrid human-AI leadership structures,” Hutchins says.

“We would need cultural acceptance of non-human entities in roles that have moral and ethical significance. And we would need to answer more profound questions about what we actually want from our leaders.”

What He Sees Moving Forward

“But even that demands careful consideration,” Hutchins points out, because, “The danger is that we automate what makes leadership human, leaving us with a shallow, transactional version of the role.”

In Conclusion

“The greater risk in my view is that Pichai’s comment becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy,” Hutchins says. “If we treat CEOs as glorified data analysts, we will attract those who think that way.”

That would be shortsighted and come at an unwanted cost, he asserts.

“The result will be organizations that optimize for efficiency while missing out on deeper aspects of purpose, meaning and the beautiful, messy complexity of human collaboration.”

Share

Communication Intelligence began as online magazine (2021-2024) on another platform and during that time, also became a free-or-paid newsletter on Substack. The C.I. brand additionally offers individuals and organizations a variety of services, from written communications as well as communication consulting and coaching.

The newsletter is written by a former newspaper reporter, magazine writer, talk show host and communications consultant and advisor.

Subscribe now

“Escaping the prison of being right,” is how Nuno Reis (pictured) labeled the practice of debate in a recent article in his Substack newsletter, Rare Dots.

Is the way that we seem to prefer to communicate with one another within disagreement and conflict the most helpful way of interacting and moving forward? Reis questions whether the norm is as reliable as society leans towards believing.

Debates, he contends, are more likely to feed our egos, entrench identities and block transformation. It’s a contention worth exploring in regards to our communication, whether socially, in the workplace or in personal relationships.

“While debate can sharpen critical thinking and communication skills, it can also harden positions, especially when the goal is to ‘win’ rather than to learn,” warns Lindsey Cormack, PhD, (photo) associate professor of political science at the Stevens Institute of Technology.

“In the classroom, I try to set goals for collaborating ‘sharpening’ rather than competitive ‘pounding.’ If you can reframe the goals of debate there’s a good reason to not discard it entirely. When done well, debate can clarify ideas and force people to confront weak arguments,” she explains.

“But if ego and identity become the focus, debate stops being about discovery and becomes performance.”

In brief, Cormack adds, it’s more beneficial to focus on the higher goal.

“The best communication — whether in a classroom, a boardroom, a legislative setting, the home, etc., depends on making sure there is a curiosity of learning from the other side instead of just a will to ‘win’ or be ‘right.’”

“I think debate can often be a cover for a communication competition. There is typically a ‘winner’ and a ‘loser’ in a debate, and which of those you are depends on your perspective,” says Jen Anderson (pictured), owner at Jen Anderson FitLife, where she provides professionally advisory and support to business owners, focusing on strategy, collaboration, communication and action.

“The exact same debate can find observers declaring either side a winner based on the point of view that they support, rather than on the actual facts presented. This has been blurred of late, with debate becoming a smokescreen for listening to respond rather than listening to understand.”

Debate therefore can become detached from its purpose.

“I think the current state of communication shows us that debate has become less about persuasion than it has become about forcing a point of view forward, regardless of the persuasion presented by the other side,” Anderson contends.

“When nobody is willing to concede their talking points, we get a stalemate, which, I think, we have plenty of examples of right now.”

Rewiring the mind can improve how people interact, come to understand differences and move forward wiser and more effectively in communication.

“I’ve spent my career helping students and teachers strengthen communication through inquiry and reflection,” says Mike Marchionda, an educator and founder at WisdomEDU.

“Our organization is a research partner with Penn State University and Arizona State University, working on projects that build from the Quality Talk framework, a model that transforms debate into inquiry-driven dialogue.”

He concisely breaks down the problem area and opportunities available.

He argues why dialogue is what interactions most benefit from happening.

“Dialogue requires humility, empathy and the willingness to revise our thinking. It’s collaborative truth-seeking, not competition,” Marchionda says. “In both classrooms and organizations, this approach reduces polarization and builds trust.”

He details what he and his organization have discovered.

“When students engage in guided dialogue before writing, their reasoning, clarity and confidence improve significantly,” Marchionda details. “The same holds true for adults, communication grounded in inquiry leads to better decision-making and empathy.”

“Debate can absolutely sharpen our thinking but it often shuts down our willingness to listen,” says Biana Lerman, a leadership and personal development coach and chief operations expert at your HubSpot Expert.

“In my experience, the moment a conversation turns into a contest, people stop hearing each other. It becomes about proving your point instead of understanding the other person’s perspective.”

She’s observed it in different types of interactions.

“I’ve seen this play out in teams and relationships alike: when everyone is trying to be right, no one feels seen,” Lerman says.

She proposes something helpful.

“As a leader and coach, I’ve learned that real growth happens in the quiet space,” Lerman tells people. “It happens between words and actions or in some cases, reactions and when both sides take a breath and actually hear what’s being said.”

This is also important to understand in personal relationships.

“In my work coaching couples through relationship crises, I’ve observed this dynamic play out countless times: when communication is structured as debate, both people are listening for weaknesses in the other person’s argument,” says Todd Stevens (pictured), at Renovation Marriage.

“When it’s structured as dialogue, both people are listening for understanding of the other person’s experience. The difference is profound.

“In debate mode, I’m mentally preparing my rebuttal while you’re still talking. I’m cataloging your logical flaws. I’m gathering ammunition. My goal is to defeat your position, not understand your perspective. And yes, this absolutely feeds the ego.”

Debating does something to people psychologically and it’s not always a positive.

“Once I’ve publicly argued for a position, my ego becomes invested in that position being correct,” Stevens says. “Backing down feels like losing face. This is why couples will continue arguing about whose turn it was to take out the trash for thirty minutes. It’s not really about the trash anymore. It’s about not being ‘the one who was wrong.’”

This prevents what people may believe that want and are communicating.

Reis advocates for dialogue because he implies it is more intellectually humble.

“Dialogue requires a willingness to be changed by what you hear and that humility is something our civic and interpersonal spaces need more of,” Cormack says.

“In my work, I try to remind parents and students that politics isn’t just about power, it’s about living together collaboratively.

“Dialogue builds empathy and trust, even when it doesn’t resolve disagreement. In workplaces or families, this means starting conversations with table-setting questions like ‘What have you heard about that?’ before asking ‘What makes you see it that way?’ or ‘Why do you have that sort of opinion?’”

Debate remains important yet shouldn’t be the starting point.

“That spirit of dialogue doesn’t have to replace debate entirely but it should come first because it can ground a debate in a more functional conversational style for both or all participants,” Cormack stresses.

What people have seen, heard and lived matters.

“If we know more about the inputs, then we can better situate the sorts of outputs they advocate for or believe in,” Cormack says.

When an important characteristic is missing in communication, it is easily noticed.

“Humility is something we don’t talk about enough in leadership or communication,” Lerman argues. “When working with founders and executives, I can almost always tell when a culture has been built around dialogue versus debate.

Curiosity and questions being primary to declarative statements could be a solution.

“What we need right now, especially in workplaces, is more conversation that starts with, ‘Help me understand where you’re coming from,’ instead of ‘Here’s why you’re wrong,’” Lerman states.

“Dialogue doesn’t mean we agree on everything,” she adds. “It means we care enough to ask more questions.”

Personal relationships real the type of communication that is higher probability of being received well and producing desired outcomes.

“Let me answer this from what I’ve observed in marriage, which is arguably the most intimate and high-stakes relationship most people will have,” Stevens begins.

It depends on what people really want to accomplish through communication.

“When someone feels truly heard, their defenses lower. Only then can they find the collaborative solutions that dialogue makes possible,” Stevens says.

“Now, to be fair, is dialogue always better than debate in every context? No. Debate has its place in courtrooms, academic settings and public policy discussions where we need to stress-test ideas against opposition.

Reis argues inquiry, not argumentation, is stronger form of communication for increasing understanding and healthier human interaction because it’s about exploring a different viewpoints.

“We absolutely need more inquiry-based dialogue,” Cormack says. “I agree this sort of orientation is overdue. Inquiry opens doors that argumentation often closes.”

A shift from the emotion and habit of competition could prove a difference maker.

She is quick to add that there is room for different types of communication.

“None of these approaches need to be mutually exclusive, they need to be deployed in different contexts,” Cormack says. “Debate can sharpen, dialogue can lead to connections, inquiry can lead to learning. We need many different approaches as ways to collectively figure out difficult problems.”

Curiosity-driven dialogue improves the odds for connection.

What is simple in theory though isn’t that way in practice.

“Telling couples ‘Do dialogue, not debate’ is easy,” Stevens says. “Teaching them how to do dialogue when they’re angry, hurt and convinced they’re right? That requires structured tools, practice and often, outside coaching or counseling.”

There are important differences to grasp, he suggests.

“Debate requires intellectual confidence: ‘I’m right and here’s why.’ Dialogue requires intellectual humility: ‘I might be missing something. Help me see what you see.’

“In my observation, intellectual humility is far harder than intellectual confidence. So is this what society needs more of? I’d argue yes, with one caveat.

“We need to teach people how to do dialogue, not just tell them it’s better than debate. Because without the skills and structure, ‘dialogue’ often devolves into venting, which is just as destructive as debate.”

Participation and with the same approach seems obvious yet it needs to be monitored.

“Understanding people and points of view that are wholly unfamiliar to you takes time, curiosity, effort and open minds. And empathy. Dialogue facilitates that and debate stifles it.”

A Final Suggested Focus

“As a society, we need to teach people how to engage in genuine truth-testing and avoid the quick slide into bickering or posturing that so easily occurs without structure,” says Gabe Seidman, co-founder and CEO at Civic Debate Academy, the nation’s top-ranked debate academy for K-12 students.

“As someone who has worked with political candidates and students, I’ve found that nothing is more intellectually humbling than having your opinions challenged on equal footing. Especially in workplaces, having structured time for debate can reduce some of the power imbalances that exist in more diplomatic forms of dialogue.

“A lower-level employee may not feel comfortable having an open dialogue with their boss but they can confidently defend a position they believe in.”

Subscribe now

Communication Intelligence began as online magazine (2021-2024) on another platform and during that time, also became a free-or-paid newsletter on Substack. The C.I. brand additionally offers individuals and organizations a variety of services, from written communications as well as communication consulting and coaching.

The newsletter is written by a former newspaper reporter, magazine writer, talk show host and communications consultant and advisor.

You can be one of the most accomplished and decorated people in your profession and still have to overcome antiquated thinking to be hired for certain jobs.

Dawn Staley has led to the University of South Carolina women’s basketball program to three national championships, was named national coach of the year four times in a five-year period and coached gold medal-winning teams in the Olympics and World Cup. She is elite in her field.

When she interviewed for the New York Knicks head coaching vacancy in a men’s league, the National Basketball Association, it should have been a legitimate chance at being hired. The reality is that there are no women head coaches in that industry.

Becky Hammon interviewed too for jobs in the NBA before going to the WNBA and winning a pair of championships in Las Vegas with the Aces.

Staley had something to say recently about the hard road and reality for a woman to get hired coaching and leading men.

"I interviewed for the Knicks. I took notes,” she told host Alex Smith on The Glue Guys podcast. “ I may not be a head coach in the NBA, but the next female that's gonna get an interview, they need to come see me because I know what comes with it.”

Staley shared her disappointing conclusion.

“I will also tell them that the NBA isn't ready (for a female head coach),” she said, going on to explain why there is a significant barrier to entry for women.

“Because you have to get ready for a female head coach. You can't just make the decision, 'Oh, that's my coach," and not have it impact the whole organization,” Staley detailed.

“I'm talking about: front office, I'm talking about players, I'm talking about media,” she explained. “Like you (as a candidate) got to answer different questions and you're not quite prepared for it because you never had to turn on that side of your brain.”

In short, men, she communicated, aren’t programmed to see the big picture.

“Y'all guys don't think that way,” Staley asserted.

There are jobs that have traditionally only gone to men and it made sense to the people doing the hiring, even though some women are also interested in and would like to be hired for those positions.

Staley, by all appearances, was qualified to coach a team of men, just as Hammon before her was qualified.

Staley took away much from her interview. She realized there is a lot of ground to travel for women to be more strongly considered for jobs in the industry.

Having this type of conversation about the reality, hardship and confusion to inform, educate and help the decision makers and the rare women candidates that do pique their interest for high-ranking jobs remains a challenge to overcome.

There are different perspectives from observers.

“It’s no secret there are many roles viewed as better suited or stereotypically reserved for men, or some for women,” says Laurie Cure, PhD, an executive coach, HR expert and CEO at Innovative Connections.

“Women are continually focusing on breaking through barriers to enter jobs, professions and industries that previously have been occupied by men.

“Yet, it still comes as a surprise to women when they enter an organization and experience a crash course in unspoken norms, hidden rules and the unwritten expectations that exist within a cultural hierarchy.”

She argues that decision makers are not fully understanding the lay of the land that women are faced with to pursue their career goals.

“What many leaders may not realize is that women are often navigating far more than the job duties, which they are likely very qualified to fulfill,” Cure says. “They are often decoding culture, managing conscious and unconscious bias and preparing to prove themselves in ways their male counterparts may never have had to consider.”

An organizational strength is needed that is often not present or showing itself.

“These conversations require a focus on transparency and willingness to challenge entrenched norms,” asserts Kelsey M. Szamet, an attorney and partner at Kingsley Szamet Employment Lawyers.

“When leadership in industries that are conventionally male-dominated ignores the implicit processes by which discrimination and vertical structure hold women back, the creation of structured spaces in which women can describe their experiences around recruitment, poor mentoring and barriers to vertical mobility, may be revolutionary.”

She suggests that something positive is helpful for the betterment of organizations.

“It is in the interests of male leaders that they are seen as active champions rather than objects of critique,” Szamet states. “These consultations are about something broader than fairness issues; they are about organizational effectiveness as a whole that occurs by tapping the most qualified people, regardless of gender.”

“We need to stop whispering behind closed doors and start saying the quiet part out loud — in the boardroom, during interviews and especially when decisions are being made,” debates Patrice Williams Lindo, CEO at Career Nomad and creator of the RNA Method: Rebrand, Network, Achieve Recognition.

“The conversation can’t just be about hiring women. It has to be about dismantling the rituals of exclusion that keep the same ten men rotating through the same leadership jobs.”

Honesty is lacking, she pointedly implies.

“Leaders in male-dominated industries need to stop pretending they’re surprised no women are ready,” Williams Lindo says. “Ask better questions. Fund mentorship with power, not pity. Make succession planning visible. And if you’ve never reported to a woman, your pipeline isn’t broken, your system is.”

Cure looks into the microscope.

“There are several lenses from which this issue can be viewed in order to support women candidates in having a fair chance at the role,” she says.

“At the individual level, it can be helpful for women to assess their perspective. While women should never carry the burden of fixing a biased system, taking a new perspective can be empowering and strategic.”

She elaborates to explain.

“Too often, women conform to male-dominated professions in order to be like men to fit in and be included,” Cure says. “I always encourage women to bring in their own authenticity rather than conform. I also encourage women to build networks of other female professionals, mentors or male allies in the industry or role.”

Leadership Ethics

Organizations can help recognize excellence and potential and benefit the whole yet it takes more than is currently being done.

“Maintaining open dialogue about these realities is essential,” Cure says. “Leadership teams in male-dominated sectors need to be willing to hear and understand what women face, not as a critique of individual behavior, but as a reflection of the systems we’ve all inherited.

“Male allies are critical. When we listen deeply, and openly, without judgement, we begin to see how the playing field can be leveled, not by lowering standards, but by ensuring everyone has equitable access to opportunity and support.”

Women know the hardship. Whether it is their responsibility or not to do more, they can take extra measures to present themselves in specific ways to increase the probability of being accurately seen for their value and high potential.

“Without meaningful reform, there are ways in which the system can be directly impacted in a positive manner,” Szamet offers as encouragement.

“Focus should be on outcome and potential. Instead of focusing merely on credentials, women may opt to focus on previous accomplishments and how they are relevant to leadership potential.

“Also important is strong preparation: anticipating potential biases or criticisms and being ready to greet them with confidence and specificity.”

She too is a proponent for allyship.

“Having champions, ideally through mentorship or other means, can greatly enhance one's potential, as well as integrity,” Szamet says. “At the end of the day, however, the goal reaches well beyond consideration for a spot. This goal involves redefining the discussion around the notion of leadership.”

Women are Already Doing Enough

“The solution isn’t to smile more or soften your power,” Williams Lindo says. “It’s to rebrand your power so it’s undeniable, unapologetic and positioned above the hierarchy that’s trying to box you in.”

She goes deeper:

“Rebrand. Don’t just update your résumé. Rewrite your narrative. Make sure your intro hits like a headline, not a footnote. You’re not hoping to contribute, you’re already a force. Speak in impact, not just experience.

“Network: Stop seeking mentors who want to fix you. Build strategic alliances with people who will sponsor you when you’re not in the room. Create your own table, then extend the invite.

“Achieve Recognition: Visibility is currency. Don’t wait to be discovered. Publish. Present. Pitch. Own your name in the market before they can ignore it in the meeting,” Williams Lindo advises.

Her judgment and directive is raw and clear.

“Until systems change, women must master both the performance and the positioning,” Williams Lindo says. “It’s not fair but it’s the lever that moves the room. And we’re not asking for permission anymore.”

“While the responsibility for equitable hiring is shared, the reality is that women often must navigate the system as it is, while also working to change it,” Cure says.

Confidence, Strong Communication and Presentations

“Be bold about the value you bring, and don’t be afraid to name the complexity of the roles you’ve held,” Cure recommends.

“It’s also powerful to reframe the narrative. Rather than simply trying to fit into a predefined mold, women can position their difference as a strength…”

Seek Critical Support; it Pays

“Find allies inside and outside the process,” Cure stresses. “Whether it’s a male sponsor in the room or a network of women who’ve been through similar processes, support is critical. It lends to increased confidence.”

A Collective Effort

“Until we change the systems,” Cure says, “women will continue to need both courage and clarity. We all have a role to play in creating better ways forward.”

Subscribe now

Share

Publisher Notes: the Communication Intelligence Extra section is unlocked and free to all readers.

Advertising available for any section of the newsletter: To advertise, link to your business, sponsor an article or section of the newsletter or discuss your affiliate marketing program, contact CI.

Communication Intelligence Services

Special writing, consulting and advisory services for professionals and business.

Our professional communication may not always meet the standard expected and when that disappointment and dissatisfaction is conveyed to us, it may not be palatable or presented in a way that feels respectful. The “win” is in the response.

One leader recently spoke of a deeply-painful experience that knocked her off balance the rest of the day. She also spoke about how he came to digest her feelings and benefit from harsh criticism.

Mita Mallick is now a workplace strategist and author of The Devil Emails at Midnight: What Good Leaders Can Learn from Bad Bosses. Previously, she was a marketing and HR executive and it was there that she recalls a transformative experience.

“Earlier in her career, Mallick struggled to find her voice at work,” Sophie Caldwell reported at CNBC’s Make It section. “Part of her reticence stemmed from low confidence due to being bullied as a child.”

“I carried some of that trauma with me into the workplace, meaning I wanted to stay invisible because I was nervous about being a target,” Mallick says.

A former boss, after a talent review meeting, let Mallick know that her approach wasn’t working, wasn’t good enough and was failing.

He told her that because of her shyness, “No one knows what you do here. You’re a wallflower. You don’t speak up. The lights are on but I don’t know if anyone is home.”

If that wasn’t rough enough, he added a more searing comment.

He told Mallick that she lacked “potential” to grow into a leadership role, Caldwell wrote. Understandably, that opened up old wounds and left her not at her best.

“I was devastated,” Mallick remembers. Badly hurt emotionally, “she left work, went home and ate a pint of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream,” Caldwell wrote.

After a long-hard day, Mallick came to the conclusion she had to invest in herself and improve her communication skills. When she thinks back, Mallick knows that while her former boss could have been more professional, he did speak the truth.

“He didn’t give it with a lot of kindness,” she told Caldwell, “but it was feedback I needed to hear.”

Mallick put in the work and is now, speaking to others is a strength.

“I was not born with the gift of gab,” she said. “I practiced like it was a sport.”

How She Prepares

“Before every presentation, Mallick rehearses what she’s going to say while she’s in the car or in the shower,” Caldwell wrote. “One helpful trick she recommends is to tell a co-worker that you’re planning to speak during a meeting beforehand, as a form of accountability.”

What she tells herself to coach herself.

What she came to conclude from that hurtful, ice-cream-soothing encounter with her boss is important. “I don’t like the way he did it, but I’m thankful for it,” Mallick said.

It’s valuable to learn how to best process and successfully respond to unkind criticism in regards to our professional communication.

“Sadly, sharp criticism from our bosses about us and our communication styles is the norm for many,” says Gregg Ward, an advisor, executive coach and the founder and executive director at the Center for Respectful Leadership.

“One way to handle it while it's happening is to engage in box breathing, which is a self-calming technique developed by military special forces. By focusing on our breathing to calm ourselves, we're less likely to respond emotionally or to lash out or break down.”

He offers an additional piece of guidance.

“Another technique that may help us to stay calm in the moment is to remind ourselves that we're not the only one who's been the target of this kind of disrespectful behavior; others have received it too,” Ward says.

“The first thing I would say is that it's important to remember this is not about your self worth,” says John Bates of Executive Speaking Success, who specializes in assisting ‘hard skills,’ logical leaders to communicate effectively with broader audiences.

“This is not about whether you're a deserving human being, this is criticism in the moment and it's your choice to either let it hurt you and take it personally or let it help you and examine it, to see if there are actionable steps you could take to better yourself.”

He offers preparation advice.

“Meditation is a great way to grow the muscle that will allow you to stay calm and curious, instead of being hurt and devastated,” Bates says. “I recommend the 7 days of Calm, which is free in the Calm app, if you're just beginning.”

Examine the Triggers to Reframe

“Take some time to work through whatever was triggered and then choose some kind of cognitive or emotional exercise, as I like to use in session with NLP, to reframe the situation,” says London Wolfe, founder at London Wolfe Healing, which brings different perspectives to business leadership and organizational psychology discussions.

“This allows for detachment and emotional growth. You have to recover from those situations in order to grow from them.

“Asking yourself certain questions like: ‘what about what they said stung the most?’ ‘Does this remind me of something from an earlier experience in my life?’ ‘What can I extract from what they said that can empower me to grow oppose to feeling less?’”

Keep it in Perspective

“One person’s opinion is one person’s opinion,” says Jessica Schroeder, a clinical marriage and family therapist. “It is important to hear the message and to take what is helpful from that message.

That “might be to take a risk to share more about your unique perspective,” yet she adds that, “If the message is ‘you are not good enough for this job,’ that is not helpful and should be left at the door.”

With Criticism Could Come a Seed of Benefit

“If the receiver of the message can hear what the manager was trying to say, that can be very powerful,” Schroeder says.

“People who are shy are expected to fit into a world of extroverts instead of letting them be shy,” Schroeder adds. “If extroverts want shy people to open up, they need to provide an emotionally safe space for them to share and commend them for sharing.

“Repeating this process will help the shy person feel more confident.”

Deeper Thinking and Evaluation

“Moving through and past your emotional reaction to harsh criticism is your first and most important step,” Ward advises. “Next, you've got to determine if the criticism was designed solely to insult or hurt you, or was the intention to help you, however crudely executed?”

Realize the Value in Front of You

“This kind of moment is a great leadership opportunity,” Bates says. “It's a moment when you can ‘lead up,’ even though they likely outrank you.”

He elaborates:

“One of the best things you can do for other human beings is to listen to them like they're great, no matter how they're acting in the moment,” Bates explains.

“If someone gives you this kind of harsh critique, are you able to listen for the good in it? For example, if this (particular) executive could say to herself: ‘That was painful overkill, but, he wouldn't even waste time criticizing me if he didn't care about how I'm being perceived?

“He believes that if people knew me better and understood what I do better it would not only help him, it would help me too. Maybe he's so over the top because he's really concerned about how this is holding me back...’"

The Positive Trigger

“Coming at it from that place would allow the actionable, and probably helpful suggestion, that this executive can do more to interact and connect with the team, while allowing the harshness and criticism to flow past,” Bates recommends.

“It's not easy in the moment, but it works much better.”

A Different Viewpoint About Executive Corrections

“We should retrain that leader,” Wolfe insists. “Asking questions to understand that employee and why they ‘introverted’ would get a better response.

“If someone is already a wallflower and you want them to open up then you have to work with them to come out of that area. Obviously, they had the skillset to get that job. If the person is a wallflower and dealing with an executive like that it would make sense for them to not feel comfortable.”

Look for What Else isn’t Understood

“They could be neurodivergent or something else could be going on,” Wolfe offers.

“They could work through that (emotionally-rough critical) experience but based on how they are wired, it may cause them to shut down further. Sometimes, we need that iron sharpens iron mentality to push us into a state of empowerment and strength to take control of a situation.”

Mallick was shook. Many people in the workplace likely have experienced the same reasonable mental and physical reaction. Moving out of that to address what needs to be done can be difficult yet not impossible.

“The feeling of being attacked is a very primitive reaction. Our nervous system is responding to a perceived danger,” Schroeder says.

“The old brain is perceiving the interaction as a threat of being kicked out of the social group, which means isolation, which is dangerous. So being shook for the rest of the day and night makes perfect sense.

“One of the best things we can do is have a support system who we feel loves us and accepts us no matter what, and I mean no matter what. This is basic attachment theory. We can go out into the world and take small risks when we have a safe haven and secure base to return to at the end of the day.”

Expand Your Thinking and Write Down Your Emotions and Experience

“Reflection and having a higher perspective to life can help us turn lemons into lemonade,” Wolfe says. “I always recommend journaling as it helps us to get what’s bothering us out of our energy. Talking to someone who can help develop confidence always helps too.”

Assume Positively and Ask Yourself an Important Question

“Once you've settled down, try assuming that the harsh critic has good intentions,” Ward suggests. “Once you do this, it's easier to separate the facts of what was said from the abusive language.

“Ask yourself, ‘what could actually be true?’ Even if you disagree, there's value in considering the possibility that they might have a point. It's at this point, you can determine if you need to make changes and what to do next.”

The Way Forward to Receive Positive Feedback

“One can ask themselves is there a glimmer of truth here and what changes can I make to address the feedback?” says Lynn Berger, a mental health counselor and career counselor and coach. “If they begin to receive positive feedback with their behavior changes, they will continue to improve their performance.”

The Reality

“It's a leader's job to point out opportunities for improvement and sometimes, under stress, we can all be overly harsh,” Bates says.

“If you can manage to hear that kind of feedback from a position of ‘they are looking out for my best interests,’ it can make it much easier to deal with.”

He provides a quick example to conclude:

“A while back I made a distinction between nice and kind,” Bates says. “It isn't nice to tell someone her dress is tucked into her underwear, but it is kind to tell her that.”

Uncertainty May Lead to Rough Communication

“People have a very hard time sharing things that they think are going to land badly, so they don't always do it so well,” Bates asserts. “And, if you can be glad they were kind and said something versus ‘nice’ and didn't say something, that can be a very good way to sift the good out and benefit, while allowing the bad to pass you by.”

Subscribe now

Share

Publisher Note: the Communication Intelligence Extra section is unlocked and free to all readers.

Advertising available for any section of the newsletter: To advertise, link to your business, sponsor an article or section of the newsletter or discuss your affiliate marketing program, contact CI.

Possibility, progress and success get blocked in certain environments when that it doesn’t have to be the case.

In a TED Talk that earned nearly 79 million views, the now late Sir Ken Robinson (1950-2020), an author, speaker and international advisor on education, talked about the difference between “dead” and “dormant” and what is being forfeited because of it.

He was speaking in the context of education yet his points can apply to workplaces.

“Not far from where I live is a place called Death Valley,” Robinson said. “Death Valley is the hottest, driest place in America and nothing grows there. Nothing grows there because it doesn't rain.

“In the winter of 2004, it rained in Death Valley: seven inches of rain fell over a very short period. In the spring of 2005, there was a phenomenon: the whole floor of Death Valley was carpeted in flowers, for a while.

“What it proved was this: that Death Valley isn't dead. It's dormant,” he pointed out.

What was believed: that life was impossible, Robinson debated, wasn’t a thorough understanding of reality. He went on to briefly elaborate to make a powerful point.

This isn’t solely about an natural environment. It goes for people as well.

“You take an area... you change the conditions, give people a different sense of possibility, a different set of expectations, a broader range of opportunities; you cherish and value... you offer people the discretion to be creative and innovate in what they do and (places) that were one bereft, spring to life,” Robinson asserted.

Communication Intelligence examines Robinson’s key points with two questions to a select collection of five professionals with expertise in the area.

This should not be a surprise. Nature has taught us this and some people have learned it applies to the workplace, people, trust, relationships and success.

“Great leaders know that,” Robinson added.

“The real role of leadership...“ he contended, “is not and should not be command and control. The real role of leadership is climate control: creating a climate of possibility.

“If you do that, people will rise to it and achieve things that you completely did not anticipate and couldn't have expected.”

Leaders want to maximize possibility and yet, the potential for excellent outcomes is often being prevented by what is taking place in the culture. When and if conditions improve, desired individual, collective and organizational growth can show itself.

Making that happen isn’t always obvious to leaders.

“We must first recognize that every individual is wired to thrive in very specific conditions and those conditions vary dramatically from person to person,” says Lorraine Berg, founder at Human Centered Workplaces and a strategic leadership analyst. “We are all unique people and bringing awareness to that differentiation is what's needed.”

She explains her reasoning.

“Generic team-building or leadership frameworks often flatten human potential because they ignore innate differences,” Berg says.

“The key is to create environments that are responsive, not reactive, where psychological safety, clearly defined roles and personalized decision-making strategies are supported.”

She talks about where organizations where improvement is more likely to happen.

“As leaders, we empower others when we stop projecting our way as ‘the way’ and start building cultures where each person’s uniqueness is not only accepted, but operationalized. That’s how untapped potential resurfaces, when it’s safe, seen and structurally supported.”

“I don’t believe potential in relationships, whether personal, team-based or organizational, is ever dead,” argues Leslie Ellis, CEO at Meaningful Change Consulting and an organizational culture, transformation specialist.

“But it can absolutely be stifled, overlooked or left uncultivated.”

She frames the challenge in a specific way that may go against common thinking.

“That’s not a capability problem, it’s a mindset issue,” Ellis contends.

“How are we viewing the relationship? What purpose is it serving? Are we shaping it with intention or just hoping for better outcomes without changing the conditions?”

A Common Unhelpful Falsehood She Notices

“One of the biggest myths I see in workplace culture is the assumption that job security should be enough, that employees should simply be grateful and that alone will empower them,” Ellis says. “Rarely, anymore: people want to contribute meaningfully, feel seen and be invited in.”

Going back to what Robinson’s focus on what can happen with the proper conditions, Ellis talks about the key to “more.”

“Potential gets unlocked when leaders create environments where people are engaged early in designing change, with clear parameters and real trust, where strengths are leveraged, not overridden, where communication is effective even when it’s uncomfortable and where people know their own value and respect the value of others, instead of slipping into codependency or top-down control,” she details.

An Important Distinction

“If I could offer one mindset shift, it would be this: stop asking how you can create the right environment for others. Start asking how you can co-create it with them,” Ellis advises.

“Invite others to define, design and shape what success looks like and you’ll be surprised how quickly dormant potential begins to thrive.”

“As a leader, I’ve come to realize that my role isn’t just to move towards the future we want, but to create the kind of conditions where people can truly thrive and where people want to be part of creating that future,” says Heather Anstey-Myers, a business coach and CEO with 30-plus years of experience.

That doesn’t happen naturally for most leaders and organizations in practice.

“We need clear processes that invite people in,” Anstey-Myers recommends.

“Too often, systems are rigid and designed to control rather than empower, yet when processes are transparent and inclusive, they become springboards for creativity, ideas, conversations and co-creation.

“If we want better outcomes, we need better conditions and that starts with us.”

“A safe atmosphere where you can make mistakes,” says Taras Tymoshchuk, CEO and co-founder at Geniusee, software development for LMS, e-learning, mobile learning apps, educational platforms and virtual classrooms.

“We consciously show, through example, that everyone makes mistakes and this is a normal process when a team works and strives for success. During conversations, we often mention something like: ‘I was wrong too and even now, I often make mistakes.’

“That’s why working in a team is cool, because someone will definitely see that something is wrong and help fix it.”

It’s helpful to additionally meet to talk safely about struggles.

“Every Friday we hold retrospectives where we discuss sprints, errors that have occurred and look for joint solutions,” Tymoshchuk says. “And in our example it works: colleagues try something new and offer really cool ideas.”

Creating a environment that allows for vibrant interactions also has to be about seeing what efforts, improvements and success are taking place.

“It is equally important to appreciate and see everyone’s contribution,” Tymoshchuk stresses. “We all need to know that we are noticed and praised. Even the best professionals eventually start to burn out if they feel that their efforts are simply expected and not appreciated.”

He provides an analogy to add to his point.

“In relationships, it is the same: when one party is always trying and the other takes it for granted, motivation disappears,” Tymoshchuk says. “Even small steps should be noticed and paid no less attention to than big achievements.”

“What is often overlooked is the need for human connection,” says Christina Muller, a workplace wellness and mental health specialist. “Beyond the bottom line, employees need to know they matter and are cared about.”

She adds that the science has proved it.

“Research supports that when people feel they are integral to a system and its parts that they will comport themselves accordingly,” Muller says.

She explains an approach that can move the organization in the right direction.

“Leaders need to check-in with their employees, not only when there’s a critical incident or issue, but periodically to see how they’re doing,” Muller recommends.

“I suggest to leaders the simple question ‘How was today?’ as a good starting point and appraisal method for seeing how someone is doing, perhaps emotionally and otherwise.”

Knowing what we know now, it’s important to develop added clarity about how leaders at any level of an organization can positively influence the climate in which other people exist and function.

This can significantly raise the odds that the right efforts and attractive outcomes to come forth because we've taken the steps for it to be ripe for happening.

She speaks to the “how.”

“One of the most powerful ways to influence that environment is to ask questions that not only engage, but empower,” Ellis says. “It’s not about educating others into your vision, it’s about inviting them into it with real curiosity and a willingness to co-create.”

Sincerity is critical, she adds.

“People know when a question is performative,” Ellis offers as a reminder. “The shift happens when a leader means it.”

It Doesn’t Matter Whether a Leader Trusts EI, it Creates or Impedes Movement

While not everyone is a believer in emotional intelligence, Berg says it’s a reliable driver of the type of organizational climate that leads to better outcomes.

It’s not EI as a “soft skill” though.

This requires certain skills, capacities and practices.

“Leaders, managers and employees who regulate their own energy, listen with presence and honor others' decision-making rhythms, create resonance instead of resistance,” Berg lists.

She elaborates about the “why.”

“In both business and personal relationships, when someone feels genuinely recognized, they contribute more freely. A fertile environment is one where people don’t feel the need to mask or (problematically) conform,” Berg adds.

In short, she explains what helps people and builds the best climates.

“Influence is not about control, it’s about conditions,” she says. “When those are optimized, outcomes improve as a byproduct of trust.”

“Have you ever sat in your car outside your workplace and had to take deep breaths in order to steady your nerves to go in,” Anstey-Myers rhetorically asks. “I have and this is the sort of workplace I never want to work in again.”

She’s developed a strong conclusion.

This is because, “Trust is the foundation for creativity, collaboration and courage,” she points out. “In my experience, the most fertile relationships are those where people feel safe speaking up, supported to take risks and seen for who they are.

“That doesn’t happen by accident. It takes intention, consistency and a willingness to lead with curiosity rather than control.”

Notice What’s Working Well and Address It:

“Beyond just checking-in, make note specifically when you see someone doing something that perhaps took initiative, courage or was a difficult problem to solve,” Muller recommends.

“Positive reinforcement is widely-known is psychology but can be missed in the workplace.

“Saying something specific like ‘I appreciated how brave you were to speak up on (a particular) issue and I loved that you did,’ can go a long way and bring about a fertile environment for engaged and successful employees.”

Subscribe now

Share

Advertising Available

This newsletter normally publishes Tuesday and Thursday, with occasional articles on other days. To advertise, link to your business, sponsor an article or section of the newsletter or discuss your affiliate marketing program, contact CI.

Leave a comment

Sometimes we don’t know what we don’t know, not only about others but also, ourselves. That can create trouble in interactions and relationships and for what we and others hope to accomplish.

This is why it’s important to understand that our communication filters impact how people receive communication. Learn this well and we will relate more, interact better and travel more successfully through life, professionally and personally.

Those filters, wrote Janine Schindler at Forbes, affect how we convey and process information. “Our personal experiences and upbringing help shape the development of our communication style and perception of the world.”

Schindler is a leadership coach and facilitator at The Left-Brained Analytical Leader and the founder at JAS Leadership. This article touches on her main points and dives deeper for expanded insights from sources for Communication Intelligence.

We should beware of cloudy filters, Schindler advised, because that “dust” “from the past can distort our perception of interactions on a daily basis.”

Distortion can’t result in effectiveness or efficiency of communication, interactions and relationships when we are “applying past experiences to present-day situations” that do not align with the reality of a given moment.

It means, she adds, that we “should examine their own filters.”

This can be helped, Schindler suggested, by asking questions and taking a moment to thoughtfully, honestly reflect:

• “What past experiences are shaping how we receive information?

• “What feelings keep popping up in certain situations that might be indicative of our own filters?

• “Have there been encounters with colleagues where we were unable to see eye to eye and how might our filter have been a part of that inability to communicate?”

These questions, if asked and thought about honestly, could reveal the needed answers for breakthrough.

“Maybe… things were interpreted in a different way than they were intended,” Schindler wrote.

Our natural or chosen filters are difficult to develop self awareness about which is why it can be helpful to be introspective.

Communication Intelligence was curious what filters have impacted people in a way that wasn't helpful or was damaging and how they responded to the experiences.

“Early in my leadership career, I had a powerful but problematic filter shaped by growing up in predominantly white professional spaces where Black women were often seen as either invisible or threatening,” says Patrice Williams Lindo, a career coach, leadership development specialist and CEO at Career Nomad, a consultancy dedicated to transformative leadership development.

“That filter meant I entered high-stakes conversations already bracing for harm: scanning for tone, hierarchy or dismissiveness — which sometimes led me to overcorrect with either withdrawal or excessive formality.”

She vividly recalls an experience that deeply impacted her.

“One moment that changed me,” Williams Lindo begins, “a white male leader casually dismissed an idea I had offered, only to praise it later when a peer reframed it. My instinct was to shut down, assuming this was racial and gender bias and maybe it was.

“But I also realized my internal filter had me defaulting to survival mode instead of strategic mode. I hadn’t left room for possibility or clarification — just protection.”

The illumination helped her develop understanding for reframing in a helpful manner.

That led to a personal prompt she developed and uses.

“I now ask myself: ‘Is this response about the moment or about a memory?’ That pause alone has helped me rewrite how I respond, with clarity instead of reaction,” Williams Lindo says. “I still honor my instinct but I filter it through purpose, not pain.”

“A leader or anyone's filters develop over time and are the sum of their life experiences,” says Bill Barrington, an ICF-accredited leadership coach and the founder at Barrington Leadership Group, which focuses on leadership development through 1-on-1 coaching, workshops and Keynote speeches.

“Positive experience with a person or organization will bias our thoughts towards them in the future and negative experiences create a negative filter for future interactions.”

It naturally, definitively affects our subconscious and conscious actions.

“This impacts our listening and response mechanisms,” says Barrington, who spent 27 years in the United States Air Force. “When in conversation, are we listening to understand or listening to respond? Are we actually formulating our response in our head rather than listening to the other person talk?

He elaborates:

“Listening to understand the fundamental cares and limitations of the other person and communicating yours to them, allows for a richer discussion and a solution, usually much more that is beneficial for everyone involved.”

He began to see interactions more in the macro than the micro.

“Rather than believing my job or area was most important, I was able to develop solutions that benefited all parties,” Barrington says.

Filters can also develop from how we live and what we like and dislike, says another source.

“I’m a 55-year-old man that spends the vast majority of my life living, working and raising a family around the NYC metro area. That’s just one of many filters that impact how I receive and share information,” says Lewis Goldberg, a managing partner who leads the public relations and crisis communications practice at KCSA Strategic Communications.

“I’m also a science fiction nerd. I’m incredibly curious and inquisitive and I question everything. That’s another filter. I’ve got my childhood experiences that inform so much of how I receive and respond.”

He has come to realize and know who he is and how it affects, helps or hurts how he engages with others.

Aware of Filters: The Benefit and Next Move

“By understanding that these communication filters exist in all of us, leaders are in a better position to examine and possibly readjust their language and communication strategies to receive input without unintentional biases, as well as better provide clear messaging,” Schindler wrote.

We can, with applied knowledge, poise and developed skills, become more effective one-way and two-way communicators.

“Being aware of these filters has allowed me to consider other options by taking a step back from my own position and looking from different points of view,” Barrington says.

“If someone has a strongly-held belief that is opposed to mine, getting curious about what is underlying their belief can allow us to find common ground that we agree on.

“This creates the basis of a working relationship and development of trust. Once trust is formed, it becomes easier to explore the areas of disagreement for possible solutions.”

Identification and Heightened Awareness

“Today, I’m intentional about naming the context before the content, especially when leading cross-cultural or cross-generational teams,” Lindo Williams says.

“As a two-way communicator, I listen beyond the words for what someone really needs: validation, clarity or reprioritization. I also use ‘mirroring’ techniques to confirm understanding before jumping to solve.

“As a one-way communicator, I’ve learned how to frame messages that don’t just inform, they invite action. My voice now carries authority and care because I’ve removed the defensiveness that once diluted my impact.”

It has assisted her in meaningful ways.

“Without this evolution, I would’ve never launched a global platform (Career Nomad), never led multimillion-dollar transformation projects across continents and certainly never would’ve been trusted to shape the visibility strategies of other underrepresented professionals navigating their own filters,” Williams Lindo says.

She’s become a stronger, more influential, persuasive and effective communicator.

“My communication now isn’t just clearer, it’s catalytic. And that’s the difference between being heard and being hired.”

Remembering the Ears

“I used to think being a great communicator meant having the best arrangement of words. Turns out, it’s more about having the right ears,” Goldberg says. “Listening and I mean really listening has become my default operating system.”

He has observed a problem, one that he works at so it doesn’t become his weakness.

“Empathy is a muscle but it’s one most people allow to atrophy,” Goldberg points out.

“I work out my empathy muscle daily and bring its strength into every encounter I can. Putting myself into the other person’s shoes helps me better understand what they value and how to best align our goals and motives.”

He reports on the reality and his personal findings:

“Often, people are surprised at the effort an empathetic ear takes coupled with the significant impact it has. I refine it daily,” Goldberg says.

“Because of that shift, I built stronger client trust, helped my teams avoid unnecessary drama and created space for rising talent to not just learn but actually lead.”

He offers readers a takeaway that was hard earned.

“If I’d stuck with the ‘talk fast, think fast’ mindset, I’d have missed out on some of the most valuable relationships and best ideas I’ve ever been part of,” Goldberg says.

“These days, I still bring the edge but I pair it with curiosity. That’s what’s made me not just a better communicator, but a better advisor, manager and human.”

Subscribe now

Share

Advertising

This newsletter normally publishes Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday, with occasional articles on other days. To advertise, link to your business, sponsor an article or section of the newsletter or discuss your affiliate marketing program, contact CI.

Leave a comment

There can be a high cost for doing the right thing.

This special report was inspired by an article — The toll of truth: What happens when you expose medical wrongdoing — written by Mary Elizabeth Williams for Salon.

This piece will not be focused on healthcare because the topic is bigger than one industry. It will begin however by sharing parts of that article to set up a conversation.

There is a "toll of telling the truth," author Carl Elliott said, because, as doctor and fellow truth-teller John Pesando has pointed out, “Every whistleblower is an amateur playing against professionals.”

“That’s exactly what it's like, because on the other side, there is a script,” Elliott told Williams. “There is a script for the PR people and the crisis managers and the attorneys in the organization. They know how to deal with whistleblowers. They've been through it many times.

“But every whistleblower is doing it for the very first time and they're just stumbling around in the dark. And then they find themselves lost and isolated and ostracized. There's often a lot of effort to discredit whistleblowers.”

Those who bring forth problems have confidence or at least, hope, that good will come from it.

“It takes a certain amount of idealism to do this,” Elliott told Williams. “None of the people I talked to struck me as idealistic in any way but I'm talking to them after the fact. But they often tell a story of this sort of innocence — ‘I was so naïve back then, I thought that this would happen.’

“One of the things that you need to think will happen is, if everybody else sees what I've seen, if they know what I know, they're going to feel the same way. They're going to feel outraged, angry and demand justice. And it almost never happens that way.”

What quickly gets learned, Elliott asserted, is sobering.

“The authorities don't leap into action. Their colleagues are not grateful. Their friends very often don't want to be seen around them because they're so toxic and radioactive at work,” he explained.

“So it is very lonely. It's even lonely in the sense that I think a lot of people who do this struggle, tell themselves a meaningful story about it. Unless there are other people who've been through the same thing that you can talk it through with, you don't really know how to develop that story.”

It’s a perplexing, stressful time.

“If it's just a series of events that are senseless, then it's just very difficult to recover from that,” Elliott told Williams.

“The struggle, in the absence of any real success, is trying to tell yourself a story in which this all has some sort of meaning, and which you can, if not feel good about it, at least make your peace with it. That is not the typical David and Goliath story.”

When well-intentioned communication of clear wrongdoing is decided as necessary, people have to prepare themselves emotionally and psychologically, as well as protect their lives for what is coming, which is likely to be unfulfilling, problematic and severe.

“Whistleblowers don't just need courage, they need evidence: clear, objective, time-stamped evidence that can’t be minimized, distorted or erased,” says Anne Glaberson, the founder of Pathos X, which helps workers who feel trapped — and the creator of DecodifyAI, the first AI-powered proof engine for invisible workplace harm.

“Most harmful behavior in the workplace doesn’t show up in a single, dramatic moment. It accumulates slowly, in patterns of gaslighting, exclusion, manipulation, retaliation and power abuse,” Glaberson adds.

“By the time someone is ready to blow the whistle, they’re often exhausted, isolated and unsure how to prove what’s been happening. And the system they’re reporting into? It's geared to question their credibility, minimize the harm and protect the institution.”

The harmful impact doesn’t end there.

“When you speak truth to power, here’s what you can expect,” says Chaz Stevens, who leads REVOLT.training to help whistleblowers and activists effectively navigate battles and who has been shot at, stalked, sued, defamed, lost business and had his dog poisoned.

“Isolation. Rejection. (Negative) online comments. A David vs. Goliath reality: the system will sanitize your words and actions and will aggressively resist the truth. Stress, fear and anxiety will be your constant companions.

“Whistleblowing isn’t for the faint hearted but it’s often a fight worth having.”

It’s helpful to look at the big picture to gain perspective.

“People need to build their support scaffolding before they blow the whistle: therapy, legal counsel, safe community, financial cushion and most importantly, clarity.

“Not just clarity on what they’re exposing but on who they are, what they stand for and what they will not compromise.”

She talks about the risks that are part of the territory.

“Truth-telling can strip people of titles, income and status but if you ground your identity in your values, you can survive the fire without burning out,” says Williams Lindo. “Assume the system will fight dirty.

“That doesn’t mean you stop. It means you train like a fighter.”

Mentally preparing for outcomes falling way short of your expectations or missing the mark altogether is valuable strategy and implementation for the hard road ahead and the mission.

“The wheels of justice turn slowly, painfully so,” Stevens says. “Prepare for a marathon, not a sprint. Praise is often few, far between and short-lived.”

There are other known realities.

“Over the decades, I’ve learned the game is rigged in favor of those with power and money,” Stevens adds. “Expect setbacks more often than wins. Don’t take losses personally, a tough-yet-essential lesson for beginners.

“Remain flexible, review, learn and adapt; be prepared to change course.”

“Expectation management is everything,” Williams Lindo agrees, explaining that, “Whistleblowers often believe the truth will lead to justice but in many systems, the truth is treated like a virus.”

She additionally agrees with Stevens about getting ready for what is coming after bringing hard truths forward.

It may help fuel one’s commitment by increasing the moral and legal support to counteract the resistance on multiple fronts.

“Build a great paper case, document everything, learn how to file ‘smart’ Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to establish clear evidence, attracting credible allies, advocacy groups and legal experts,” Stevens recommends.

He is quick to add, however, that “my substantial experience has proven you’ll find few supporters, it’s near impossible to break through the media noise and few folks have experience pitching and managing the press.

“Unless you’re lucky enough to go viral, social media will only take you so far.”

The next level of progress requires something more.

“Maximize your odds by focusing on media outreach, strong evidence and powerful storytelling,” Stevens says. “Learn to pitch (attractive information, angles and stories). So important.”

In the macro, Williams Lindo advocates for a root-cause response to lessen the toll of communicating truth.

“We must build ecosystems of accountability outside of the institutions being challenged,” she says. “That means stronger legal protections, yes, but also cultural capital.

“Whistleblowers should not be isolated islands. They should be surrounded by communities, journalists, advocates and allies who understand the cost of the truth and are ready to support it.”

Leaders and their attorneys can adjust their mindsets, ethics and morals as well.

“Organizations also need to normalize internal dissent as a sign of health, not defiance,” Williams Lindo says. “That starts with leadership modeling transparency and investing in independent ethics channels.”

The “how” for reforming the system so that truth telling can accomplish what is critical and valuable, remains an evergreen topic.

Moving farther away from it being easier to hide, discredit, dismiss or legally settle, accompanied with confidentiality agreements and no admittances of wrongdoing, have proven to be over-sized tasks.

“We need systemic rewiring,” Williams Lindo says. “That includes abolishing forced NDAs in whistleblower settlements, third-party reporting structures that bypass internal conflicts of interest, leadership KPIs tied to ethical culture, not just profit margins and federal-level transparency incentives for proactive disclosure.”

She summarizes her thoughts.

Stevens analysis on Non-Disclosure Agreements are not positive.

“NDAs are evil, as they stifle (reporting of) wrongdoing,” he says. “SLAPP suits have been weakened over the years. FOIA laws, once robust, are now, well, not so much

“Unfortunately, I don’t hold out much hope for improvements, as those in charge do not want to be held accountable.”

He hasn’t given up though and presents an idea.

“One essential reform would be a statewide oversight body with actual enforcement power to investigate whistleblower disclosures impartially,” Stevens offers. “Without serious commitment, meaningful change remains a pipe dream but it's a fight worth continuing.”

The broken thinking, Elliott has explained, whether in academic health centers, as he has written about or in any organization, “is that reflexive tendency to say:

“Nobody can know about this. We have to keep it quiet. If we have a victim coming forward, or we have a whistleblower coming forward, we have to discredit them, so that no one will actually believe what they're saying.

“‘If we can't discredit it, then we need to sweep it under the rug. We need to keep it as quiet as possible. We need to settle it and we need to settle it with a confidentiality agreement so that nobody knows about this. And then, if they do know about it, never apologize. Never compensate the victims. Never admit wrongdoing.’”

Collectively, society knows, and deeply feels, that has no place, anywhere.

“Not only is it ethically, morally wrong to do that, I think it's also counterproductive,” Elliott told Williams. “Because how are you supposed to trust the system, when every time something like this comes up, they lie about it?

“They dissemble and they stonewall the press, and they do (it) every time.”

Trusting Continues to Get Harder to Do

What needs to be done so that organizations, courts and systems can be trusted?

“The system can only be trusted when it shows it is capable of holding itself accountable without being coerced by public shame or legal action,” Williams Lindo says.

“That means independent oversight and not insiders policing insiders, real consequences for unethical leadership and not golden parachutes and transparent post-investigation communications, not vague legalese.”

Without that level of professionalism, ethics and morals, expect the following:

“Until then, skepticism isn’t cynicism,” Williams Lindo says. “It’s wisdom.

“Those pushing for reform shouldn’t be silenced. They should be protected, empowered and praised.”

Stevens recalls some of his past work that helped expose criminal wrongdoing in Florida, leading to punishments for public officials.

“Here’s what I learned: legislators should mandate severe penalties for officials who lie or conceal wrongdoing, preemptively find and fix organizational misconduct and praise whistleblowers, don’t marginalize them. That is likely never to happen but it’s a wonderful dream to keep in mind.”

Subscribe now

Share

This newsletter normally publishes Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday, with occasional articles on other days. To advertise, link to your business, sponsor an article or section of the newsletter or discuss your affiliate marketing program, contact CI.

Echo chambers don't just happen online. They happen inside organizations.

What then, can be done to increase the awareness of them, understand the risks and successfully address the problems they create.

“Although decisions can often be made more easily in echo chambers, leaders should learn how to break out of their comfort zones of agreement in order to make better decisions,” wrote Ryan MacTaggart at EDUCAUSE Review.

“In short, an echo chamber is the intellectual environment that people create to pad themselves from disagreement and to believe that their opinions are shared and correct,” he added.

These thinking swamps can deceive us into believing we have a firm, thorough grip on the full reality, a belief that may end up being disproven.

“Any relationships based on shared interests and goals inevitably create a community, and a unity, of shared beliefs,” says Maria Chamberlain, the president at Acuity Total Solutions, a facility management, including cybersecurity, company.

“In this way, I think echo chambers are built into our nature, and that's why they can be dangerous, especially at work.”

She elaborates.

“Love it or hate it, each workplace has a culture. We have shared goals to accomplish certain tasks. We come to agreements about the best way to do things, who our competition is, and what's good or bad for the company. That creates biases.”

Word use and phrasing is also worth paying attention to and considering.

“Jargon can be a good indicator of an echo chamber,” says Max Weisman, a political communications director and the principal at Halom Strategies, which provides media training, branding workshops and group coaching to enhance public presence and storytelling.

“When individuals stop sounding like individuals and are sharing sentiments with similar jargon-leaning language, this mind trap may be at play.”

Learning how to spot the presence of them is an ever-important task.

“We encourage diversity in our information sources, we welcome contrasting opinions for the sake of analysis and we remind each other not to rely on cliches,” she says of her company’s efforts to prevent problem thinking.

Organizational leaders can additionally create a territory that makes it natural and acceptable to speak up when echo chambers are developing or thriving.

“By directly calling attention to this or subtly asking questions of individuals with aggressive follow-up questions, it can challenge people to adopt free thought without succumbing to groupthink,” Weisman asserts.

This is important because of what it can prevent, a potentially false assumption.

“On the other hand, forcing employees to share emotions publicly is not safe nor is it conducive to creating an open environment.

“A more effective approach would be to have private one-on-one conversations where employees could express their opinions without judgment, or a group community dialogue where a timer is set and each person can share what their opinion is on a particular topic.”

This is important, Slatkin insists, because if it isn’t done or the norm, risks remain.

“Until employees can open up without fear of their disclosure being used against them, there will still be a stigma,” he points out.

“Trainings and community-building exercises and retreats are also good ways to foster a safe environment that encourages a community feel and acceptance of everyone.”

There are common and problematic risks of existing, and remaining in, groupthink.

“People can get defensive of critical analysis because they feel it questions their ability or decisions,” Chamberlain says. “This is dangerous because that thinking can lead to underreporting of threats and an unwillingness to discuss mistakes.”

She provided an example.

“Entire industries have been lost to companies that were considered too dominant to fail,” Chamberlain says. “Remember Blockbuster video? They didn't take Netflix seriously, and even had an opportunity to buy them, but they believed that movie-by-mail was a niche service that would never out-perform their retail locations. Oops."

Brainpower gets wasted and thinking is dumbed down.

“Similar to cults, workplace echo chambers punish free thought and individualism,” Weisman says. “This is detrimental to the individual's growth, promotes homogeneity and stifles creativity.”

Influencing a shift in thinking to depart echo chambers for more clear, smarter and effective decision making can be accomplished.

“The first step in leaving the chamber and making better decisions must be the awareness that a chamber exists,” MacTaggart wrote.

“Create a culture of free thinking,” Weisman suggests. “Promoting individuals to share their opinions, lead individual and group projects and take various role-specific leadership opportunities will disband echo chambers and instill individual growth with collective rewards.”

Increasing awareness is helpful.

When uncertainty and hesitancy is present, “coworkers can be encouraged with anonymous surveys and diverse teams,” she proposes. “Third-party reviews and industry peers are also great sources of feedback and new ideas.”

Chamberlain offers her strongest recommendation for the challenge.

“The most important part to breaking down echo chambers is to let people have their opinion,” she advises. “The world is changing fast and hearing people out… may equip you to adapt to changes."

Subscribe now

Share

This newsletter normally publishes Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday, with occasional articles on other days. To advertise, link to your business, sponsor an article or section of the newsletter or discuss your affiliate marketing program, contact CI.

Leave a comment

Human interactions that present walking on eggshell exchanges are stressful territory to traverse. There is a lot happening emotionally and psychologically in each person’s mind. A public figure recently talked about it, inspiring the following conversation.

Comedian Bill Burr knows he has an explosive temper. He’s not a cold anger person. It’s out in the open. In a stand-up routine he mentioned how his predictable nature with upset has put his wife in a place to where she, according to Burr, apprehensively approaches certain requests with him.

People who act as Burr says he does may be blind to what is going on within their mind and why they put other people in highly uncomfortable or fearful situations.

“Most likely, except in extreme cases — abuse for example — we are unaware that we are creating this dynamic,” says Dana Marcus, LCW, is a therapist and and founder at Dana Marcus Psychotherapy. “Folks who cause those around them to have to walk on eggshells are generally emotionally immature and lack both emotional intelligence and insight.”

Creating this dangerous emotional and psychological landscape could be purposeful.

“Those who are narcissistically oriented derive satisfaction or psychological 'supply' when they cause those around them to calibrate to them constantly,” Marcus says.

People who are so reactively intense to the point where others are uncertain, uneasy or afraid around them, “often have a difficult time self- regulating their emotions and are easily activated by other people, places and things,” says Shari B. Kaplan, LCSW, a trauma-informed therapist, speaker and founder of Cannectd Wellness and The Can’t Tell Foundation.

“People who are easily activated often have unresolved chronic or traumatic stress, early childhood drama, neurological and mental health challenges, chronic pain or illnesses or unresolved pain or grief.”

It can be difficult for them to know why they are acting in an extreme manner.

Such a person “is struggling emotionally and psychologically in ways they might not fully recognize,” says Allison Chase, PhD, the senior clinical advisor at Eating Recovery Center and Pathlight Mood & Anxiety Center.

“Often, there's a heightened sensitivity to feeling judged, criticized or rejected, causing them to react defensively or intensely, even when that wasn't the intention.”

Deep inside, there can be significant turbulence that isn’t clear to other people

“They might be managing deep insecurities, unresolved emotional pain, fears about not being good enough or losing control,” Chase adds. “This kind of intensity tends to push others away or create tension in relationships, which is exactly the opposite of what the person likely wants or needs.”

This means, the way to healing and improvement has a specific path.

“Recognizing what's happening inside is the first step toward addressing these issues, creating a more comfortable space for genuine and meaningful interactions,” Chase says.

It Impacts and Conditions the People Who Experience It

“When someone regularly feels they have to 'walk on eggshells,' it creates a sense of ongoing anxiety and emotional tension,” Chase says.

“Over time, emotionally and psychologically, it leads to increased stress, self-doubt and diminished self-esteem, as they constantly second-guess themselves or hold back from expressing their true feelings and needs.”

This naturally leads to changes in responses, out of perceived necessity.

“Behaviorally, people become overly cautious, avoidant of conflict and hesitant in their interactions,” Chase points out. “The real issue with becoming conditioned this way is that it limits authenticity, creates barriers to healthy communication and can prevent individuals from advocating for themselves or setting important boundaries.

“Ultimately, this kind of conditioning can undermine their emotional well-being and negatively impact their relationships and sense of self.”

It’s unsurprising that people proceeding cautiously or fearfully do so because of the instinctual part of their brain.

“When one feels compelled to walk on eggshells they typically feel under some type of threat. The threat can be conscious or unconscious,” Marcus says.

“An example of a conscious threat is when one parent is forced to interact with another, narcissistic or abusive parent, after a divorce. The conscious threat could be derived from the fear of not having financial needs met, or related to custody or time spent with children.

“An example of an unconscious threat is when someone walks on eggshells because they fear abandonment. Perhaps they had a parent who died and now walk on eggshells with their partner as a way to people please, out of fear of angering the partner and possibly losing them.”

She details what is problematic about becoming conditioned by painful experiences.

“Over time, it erodes our sense of self. When we become habituated to always put others needs above our own (such as), ‘I need you to stay calm so I will walk on eggshells to achieve this,’ resentment builds because our needs go ignored.

“Constantly ignoring our own needs causes us to lose track of what they are, breeding codependency and robbing one of their autonomy.”

“For the family members, friends, or coworkers who work with these easily-activated individuals, life can become unpleasant and challenging,” Kaplan explains.

“If you’re an adult and live in this environment, you might find yourself in frequent arguments or you cater to the volatile person by people pleasing and and even lying to the volatile individual.

“The lying occurs as a way to decrease the activation that could possibly happen for the individual. This works out sometimes but often if the volatile person discovers the lie, it will often make the situation much worse.”

It changes how children process and respond to people and stressful interactions.

“Being with an easily-activated individual, can cause a child to live in a hyper-vigilant mode because they have to look out for their own safety,” Kaplan says.

“Often times, this is not conscious, it is the adaptation response to being in an unsafe situation, whether it’s unsafe, emotionally or physically. The child often learns quickly that they cannot get their basic needs met unless the parent or adult in the household is happy or calm.

“They may learn how to people please in order to keep the adult calm and create an environment where they can get their food clothing, shelter and safety needs met.

“The child will either behave in a way that caters to the volatile individual with people pleasing or they will act out against the adult. The child that will instigate the activation, does so, as a way of controlling their own anxiety as to when the activation of the volatile individual, the rage or meltdown will occur.”

Coping

“As painful as a coping tool that this seems, both people pleasing and instigating activation are ways for the child to feel a sense of power in a powerless situation,” Kaplan explains.

“The child may also develop negative beliefs about themselves that are repressed such as I’m bad, I’m a burden, I’m powerless, I’m not safe and I’m not good enough. This is one of the ways the cycle of violence or generational trauma is created.”

People can take steps to learn how to not put people in anxious, dangerous situations with their displeasure, anger or rage.

“Learning how to regulate our emotions is critical,” Marcus stresses. “If we can tolerate our own distress, we are less likely to cause those around us to walk on eggshells as a management strategy.

“Additionally, understanding why we're so angry in the first place can help us to dissolve this dynamic, resulting in healthier interpersonal dynamics.”

There are smarter, more effective ways to communicate and problem solve.

“I suggest they try responding with clear, calm communication, focusing on expressing their feelings and using ‘I’ statements, with some validation,” Chase recommends.

“It can be helpful to focus on expressing their feelings and needs rather than worrying about managing the other person's reactions,” she adds.

Kaplan offers suggestions for those suffering harm

“Encourage the volatile person to seek help to develop their own self-regulation tools and get some insight into help how they can better manage their activation buttons. Only do this if the volatile person is safe enough to have this conversation with.

“Learn de-escalation tools and techniques. Learn things to say and do that can keep you and others emotionally or physically safe when someone starts to become activated.

“You’re not lying to a volatile person if you’re learning how to speak in a compassionate language that maintains healthy boundaries and also takes into consideration the limitations of the volatile person.

“Honesty without compassion is cruelty. People who are easily activated are also in pain and need help,” Kaplan says.

Takeaway Support Point

“It’s important that you know the difference between walking on eggshells and a dangerous situation that you need to get help for and, or possibly get away from,” Kaplan says. “They are caring professionals who can help. You are not alone.”

Subscribe now

Share

This newsletter normally publishes Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday, with occasional articles on other days. To advertise, link to your business, sponsor an article or section of the newsletter or discuss your affiliate marketing program, contact CI.

Resilience is not a mandatory skill but getting through the most stressful or traumatic of experiences and times is going to be much harder and more painful without it. Learning to change our thinking around it in simple, specific ways can strengthen us and improve our recovery, peace and lives.

It’s a topic that was discussed in the Beyond the Call of Duty — Building Emotional Resilience episode of the Knowing Self-Aware Leadership podcast on Substack, hosted (and written) by Dr. Nia D. Thomas.

This feature shares highlights of that conversation as well as an interview between with the source for that podcast, John Christy, an executive coach for resilience and high-stakes leaders, and Communication Intelligence.

Christy’s help for people is a byproduct from his experience and career as a paramedic, firefighter paramedic and EMS captain.

He talked with Thomas about "the need for emotional resilience in high-stress roles.” Christy says “emotional injuries should be treated as seriously as physical ones,” Thomas wrote.

We, as a collective, may not yet fully understand the need for that attention and level of care for emotional trauma.

“People understand what they can see,’ Christy tells Communication Intelligence.

“When I had surgery on my neck or shoulder, my co workers readily helped me with the challenging physical aspects of the job. No one ever made fun of me. Emotional injuries, being invisible, are often misunderstood or minimized.”

Additionally, there remains the often, still problematic way we look at mental health.

“There's also the stigma, especially in high-stakes roles, where emotional challenges might be wrongly equated with weakness,” Christy says, “This is understandable because we need everyone to be mentally strong when we count on them in dangerous situations.”

He knew however, from experience, a new line of thinking was necessary.

Doing it alone might seem to be what we need to do or for different reasons, have to do, but Christy disagrees, as Thomas wrote at her Substack newsletter.

"Leading a peer-support team showed John how crucial it is to have a network to rely on in tough times. These teams offer a platform to discuss emotional challenges openly.

“To make mental health discussions as common as physical health ones, organizations should consider setting up similar support systems."

While, assumingly, there are organizations doing this now, it is unlikely to be the norm. To inspire more leaders to develop, monitor and improve such platforms into a dependable, critically-important service for employees that could result in a welcomed payoff, has to be become an organizational or leader priority.

“Leaders who model openness, invest in structured peer support programs, allocate resources for continuous training and regularly measure outcomes are the leaders who will stand out.”

It benefits the organization as a whole, especially when engagement remains such a workplace focal point.

“When mental health becomes a recognized factor affecting performance, productivity, and retention, organizations will naturally prioritize it,” Christy states.

Self-awareness is not only a nice-to-have skill for social interactions and relationships, it is one that is necessary for our well-being, so much so that Christy says that it provides life-changing power.

This can be developed with curiosity instead of judgment and by using this approach, he learned that setbacks can be transformed into strengths.

“The mind is a powerful tool that most people never pay attention to,” Christy asserts. “How we see the world is directly linked to our way of thinking.

“Curiosity transforms challenges into opportunities for learning, helping people become more empowered and less trapped by circumstances.”

Sleep is a Critical Factor for Emotional, Physical Recovery

“Sleep deprivation is a big part of my story,” Christy says. “I worked shift work for over 30 years and this directly impacted my mental and physical health. The data on sleep deprivation is clear: It is linked to cardiovascular and mental health. It’s also linked to cancer. I am confident that my cancer diagnosis was related to sleep.

“Prioritizing sleep is foundational to self-care. Aim for consistency: a regular sleep schedule, a restful environment and proactive stress management before bedtime.”

The benefits, Christy points out, are significant for how we operate.

“For those on shift schedules, there is much they can do to be a step ahead of the damage done by a mixed-up circadian rhythm. I didn’t know this at the time. The ‘I’ll sleep when I’m dead’ saying has an ominous shadow. Yes, you will, much sooner than if you took sleep seriously.”

Christy has advisory about how mental health discussions can become emotionally and psychologically more open, accepted and common.

He talks about how he is doing it in his own family.

“My wife and I watched the television series, The Bear, and took a saying from it:

“‘You good Chef?’ We make it okay to check in on each other regularly. Don’t wait for a problem,” Christy recommends.

Vulnerability can be a leadership asset, when used correctly, as well as a way to reduce stress and maintain or regain emotional peace.

“Leaders who feel they have to know everything and be involved in every decision act from a place of insecurity,” Christy says. “I support high-stakes leaders to surround themselves with a team of people who collectively know more than they do.

“Vulnerability can signal authenticity, fostering trust and psychological safety.

“Asking the team, ‘I don’t know what to do; what do you think?’ can be a powerful move for a leader. It demonstrates to the team that the leader relies on them to accomplish the mission. It reveals that leaders are human, relatable and approachable, significantly enhancing team connection, collaboration, and resilience.”

Share

This newsletter normally publishes Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday, with occasional articles on other days. To advertise, link to your business, sponsor an article or section of the newsletter or discuss your affiliate marketing program, contact CI.

Subscribe now

Patrick Lencioni’s book “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable,” has been a best-seller and considered a leadership handbook for executives, managers and organizations. One point that he made is the focus of this roundtable special report.

Trust building is a prerequisite to earning credibility and buy-in, especially when conflict arises or is discovered to be entrenched.

Leaders know conflict can be a productive road or a suboptimal or destructive one. Relationship quality plays a role in how effective the problem solving .

“Facing dysfunction and focusing on teamwork is particularly critical at the top of an organization because the executive team sets the tone for how all employees work with one another,” Lencioni wrote.

The good news, he asserted, is that, “Counter to conventional wisdom, the causes of dysfunction are both identifiable and curable.”

DYSFUNCTION #1: ABSENCE OF TRUST

The fear of being vulnerable with team members prevents building of trust within the team.

DYSFUNCTION #2: FEAR OF CONFLICT

The desire to preserve artificial harmony stifles the occurrence of productive, ideological conflict.

DYSFUNCTION #3: LACK OF COMMITMENT

The lack of clarity or buy-in prevents team members from making decisions they will stick to.

DYSFUNCTION #4: AVOIDANCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY

The need to avoid interpersonal discomfort prevents team members from holding one another accountable for their behaviors and performance.

DYSFUNCTION #5: INATTENTION TO RESULTS

The pursuit of individual goals and personal status erodes the focus on collective success.

Two Questions for 5 Sources

"Malicious” compliance is dangerous as a perceived, reliable substitute for agreement.

Yet “why, specifically” is the curiosity and question, considering it is often the norm.

“One time, my manager instructed an employee to ‘only follow written procedures,’ without exception,” recalls Harrison Tang, the co-founder and CEO at Spokeo, a people search engine.

“The employee knew that the task required flexibility, but instead of speaking up, they strictly followed the rule, fully aware that it would cause delays and mistakes.”

The results were predictable.

“This led to a significant problem, as the task was not completed efficiently,” Tang says. “The employee’s rigid adherence to the rule was not intended to improve the process but rather to expose flaws in the instruction. As a result, the project was delayed and frustration grew between the employee and the manager.”

The employee that Tang talked about decided not to professionally argue their point so they decided to make one covertly, with evidence — not exactly what the manager expected or wanted. Examining what occurred from a dissatisfied or frustrated team member’s perspective is helpful for understanding.

“Malicious compliance is a passive aggressive behavior,” says Connor McClenahan, Psy.D., a clinical psychologist at Here Counseling, a private practice primarily assisting lawyers and certified public accountants (CPAs) who often need help navigating the emotional issues that arise in their work environments.

“The person privately, or even unconsciously, uses compliance to communicate their belief that they're being treated unfairly or they weren't listened to.”

Forced compliance is more likely to lead to outbreaks of problems with some people.

“It's risky because unlike open conversation, passive aggressive behavior is difficult to confront and can spiral into larger conflicts, costly energy and resources in recovering from the lost productivity and trust.”

What leaders are after may not emerge from compliance-focused efforts when conflict is forming or is occurring.

“Real commitment requires open conversation and patience,” McClenahan states. “Though it can feel frustrating and unfair for managers to listen more intently to an employee who is expressing malicious compliance, it is the most efficient and healthy way to avoid further problems.”

“Think of it this way,” says Margaret Ricci, founder and CEO at Cultural Strategies, a company that uses scientific analysis to heal bad relationships between team members. “‘Malicious compliance’ is, in effect, saying out-loud, ‘Yes’ when everything inside the person’s head is saying, ‘No stinkin’ way!'“

“In their head, they are already thinking of ways to sabotage whatever is trying to be built or gained. The trust level of these two — or more — individuals is at such a low point that it cannot move up the scale unless something dramatic changes. Right now, there is no trust between these people.”

That’s a treacherous place in a relationship.

What appears to look, sound and feel like a positive sign for leaders, she says, is not as good as it appears.

“This is why we don’t want to have consensus,” Ricci says. More on this later.

“Malicious compliance when resolving conflicts will never lead to sustainable positive results” says Iqbal Ahmad, an entrepreneur and director at the Britannia School of Academics, an online training course company, “and will be counterproductive in maintaining harmony and peace,” he adds.

It’s a dangerous approach on which to depend, Ahmad stresses.

“If either or both parties in the conflict agree to a resolution half-heartedly but do not accept the outcome, it will create a toxic environment in which further dysfunctional conflicts will take place,” he says.

“Real commitment, in contrast, will mean that the parties are able to put aside their differences to accept the outcome in the best interest of the organization — and for the sake of their own professional image.”

Forceful compliance can’t be depended on, says Ryan Anderson, the president at Markiserv, a graphic design agency, “because it is not being derived from true bonding or connection, but generally out of fear, pressure or conflict avoidance.”

Future issues should be expected.

“This tailwinds further down the line in the relationship that will impact how the individual you had a conflict with perceives, interacts and trusts you,” Anderson says.

The risks are greater than leaders might foresee.

“Generally, unless there is true trust or bonding, compliance under malicious intent will be to save face, and that specific individual will generally not be one to rely upon in high pressure situations, or when there are other options for that individual to take like finding another job, another friend or life partner,” Anderson points out.

In this second and final section, this report will look at trust building, conflict repairs and the maintenance of trust as vitally important precursors to successfully meet — and work through — conflict for the benefit of multiple stakeholders and the whole.

“I have read Patrick Lencioni’s book ‘The Five Dysfunctions of a Team,’” Tang says, “and it was one of the most impactful books that guided me in managing conflicts within my organization.

“I firmly believe that trust enables honest communication.”

He elaborates, to detail what has learned in his role in the company.

“If an employee does not trust that I will listen to their concerns without reacting harshly or firing them, they will likely stay silent,” Tang says.

Leaders may forget in professional contexts how important that this concept is to collaboration, harmony and the outcomes for which they are striving.

It’s invaluable when people learn to believe in each other’s conduct and character.

“Trust building is about safety,” McClenahan says. “It means building safety to freely express discontent, frustration and alternative positions without fear of being ostracized.

It’s not only about being able to work with conflict but how people feel about issues and each other afterward.

“Trust helps to build back relationships out of rough conflicts due to feelings already being established and present before the conflict arises,” Anderson states.

“Without the establishment of a positive affinity for the other, conflict repair becomes much more difficult due to the lack of familiarity or genuine like for the second party.”

Ricci, whose company, Cultural Strategies, has a page on its website devoted to “Overcoming The Five Dysfunctions of a Team,” talks about trust and “right” and “good” when it comes to the difficult interactions in organizations.

“From the ability to trust and have good conflict comes the ability to have true commitment to the group’s actions. From this, a team will be able to come up with the best solutions, instead of the inferior ones contained in consensus.”

She explains how this investment pays dividends in communication and outcomes.

“When people know they can trust others, they’re more willing to voice their opinions without having problems with trust issues,” Ricci says. “This leads to better solutions that everyone can commit to."

The alternative is going to be viewed and experienced as unappealing and an impediment to the needs of the organization.

“They’ll be thinking that the sabotage component in consensus can get them close enough, without risking to speak up about the problems they foresee. ‘Let them figure it out themselves,’ they say to themselves, ‘It serves them right.’

“Most conflicts take place because of misunderstanding or miscommunication,” Ahmad states. “The probability of such misunderstanding and miscommunication will reduce drastically if we trust each other to be sincere and well-intentioned people.”

He elaborates by using two brief examples:

“Say a colleague responded to a friendly gesture in a very cold way. If you have a relationship of trust with each other, you are likely to assume that the person is probably having a bad day or perhaps going through a crisis,” Ahmad says.

“Instead of planning to avenge that behavior, you would look for an opportunity to reach out to offer help and support.

“If there is a tense situation during a business meeting where two participants are taking a stand on opposing ideas, the conflict will be a functional one if both of them trust each other to have good intentions and high morals.”

Perceptions, impacted by trust methodically built, nurtured and repaired when necessary is a foundational practice that allows leaders and teams to “contend with conflict” in a way that is a pathway for success.

“With that mindset, the people will focus on brainstorming to find the best possible solution rather than trying to make (office) political statements or bring each other down,” Ahmad says.

“In contrast, if the same individuals have a history of one or both of them being dishonest or lacking professional ethics, the conflict will become dysfunctional, where personal comments will be made and grudges kept, leading to a waste of organizational resources and other negative outcomes.”

Subscribe now

Share

This newsletter normally publishes Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday, with occasional articles on other days. To advertise, sponsor a section of the newsletter or discuss your affiliate marketing program, contact CI.

See every side of every news story at Ground News. Read the news from multiple perspectives. See through media bias (wherever it comes from) with reliable reporting from local and international sources. Save 40 %.

Being the confused one in business-and-workplace meetings may not be as much of a negative as we think. Maybe the bigger issue is not being willing to seek clarity.

Professionals and missions most profit from their people being curious and speaking up when communication isn’t creating full understanding, says Simon Sinek, a speaker, author on business leadership and a provider of leadership development training programs.

"I'm an idiot," he calmly admitted in an interview on Instagram. "I don't understand very complicated things. So I ask a lot of questions just so I understand it.”

He recalls a particular experience that made a memorable impression on him.

"A long time ago, I had a client. They invited me to sit in on a meeting from the consultant that they had hired,” Sinek says. “All the C-level executives sitting there, nodding — and I didn't understand a fricking word of it.”

Knowing that he was there to be helpful, he did what he knew the moment required.

"So I raised my hand and said 'I know I'm the only one here without an MBA but this doesn't make sense. Can you say it again please. I'm really sorry to slow the meeting down everybody,” Sinek remembers.

What happened next may be surprising to some readers.

“And one by one, all the C-level executives said, 'yeah I don't understand it either,” Sinek says.

He developed a conclusion from that day.

"Now, if the 'idiot (himself)' hadn't spoken up and said, 'I don't understand,’ they all would've nodded their heads for fear of looking stupid and they never would have used it and it (product or service) would have sat on the shelf,” Sinek forecasts.

That’s why he recommends professionals get comfortable with being curious and hungry for clarity and not care about the risk of looking like the only person in the room whom isn’t grasping what is being communicated. He explains why this needed.

"I'm ok being the 'idiot,” Sinek says with humility. “But the reality is, once I can get to where I understand it, I can say it in simple terms; that means that other people understand it too. There's a lot of value being the 'idiot.'"

Not every leader or presenter within an organization is welcoming of questions. The assumption may be that an attendee in the meeting should be able to pay attention, follow along and understand what is being presented. It’s vital to have someone who will always speak up or leaders to encourage others to do it.

“In any organization, we really need somebody willing to ask the ‘dumb questions,” says Heather Lamb, Ed.D., an author and workplace culture and well-being expert.

“Innovations and the clarities of collaboration are driven through curiosity — and curiosity is perhaps the most valuable tool at our disposal,” she adds.

“Leadership needs to be aware that as much as having an effective communication strategy is important, so too is having a culture of open dialogue, rather than one where we fear looking ignorant.”

The former drives beneficial conversations and progress while the latter leave increased room for ongoing ambiguity, stagnation and errors.

“When somebody stands up to ask a question, they’re not just making it easier for themselves, they’re giving others an opportunity who may feel too worried to speak up,” Lamb says.

“This inquisitiveness and perseverance in questioning assumptions to simplify the work process is one of the fundamentals in building an honest, transparent work culture.”

“Growing a culture of questions is vital to any business that flourishes,” Clark Lowe, president and CEO at the O’Connor Company, a non-residential construction company, has found.

It remains common that there are blockers to this practice.

“Many often recognize that ego kills innovation,” Lowe adds, “so why does this become so difficult at the highest levels? Those operators are often already highly skilled and regarded. It's what got them there. However, through the years of trial by fire, it becomes easy to lose sight of simplicity.”

Questions open minds, create feedback flows and bring added clarity for decisions.

“While the sophistication of business does increase as you move up the echelons, the questions that need to be asked are inversely sophisticated,” Lowe says.

“A great show that illustrates this concept in action is ‘Undercover Boss,’ where CEOs go undercover and perform jobs at the lowest levels of the company. And the insights that are gained are often profound — and incredibly simple.”

Leaders of meetings or the other leaders attending them can encourage curiosity, confidence and the assertive asking of questions to create an added comfort level.

There is another recommendation that can prove helpful.

“Fixed time slots can be set up to encourage employees to ask any questions,” says Alex Li, the founder of StudyX.AI, an AI education company. “For those employees who don't dare to ask questions face to face, an anonymous questioning platform can be established.

“Of course, the purpose of asking questions is to receive timely responses. Therefore, after employees ask questions, leaders and colleagues should provide targeted feedback, making employees feel that their questions are taken seriously and effectively resolved. Only in this way will employees build up their confidence in asking questions.”

His experience has led him to conclude that incentivization is a driver of success.

“I think the most effective measure is to regularly recognize and reward those employees who have solved work problems or brought new ideas through questioning,” Li says.

“Through such rewards and praise, employees can be motivated to continue maintaining a positive attitude of asking questions and exploring. This positive incentive can create a favorable effect within the team.

“More and more employees will recognize the value of asking questions and thus be more willing to take the initiative to ask questions and share their thoughts.”

“To make curiosity and bold questioning the standard, leaders must work to create a psychologically safe space,” Lamb says. “This begins with modeling vulnerability themselves — admitting when they don’t have all the answers and encouraging others to ask questions.”

Any leader within a collaboration, partnership or organization can be be a facilitator. What’s most important is that it gets done.

“Training leaders to foster spaces where questioning is embraced and anticipated is critical,” Lamb adds. “Officials may recognize the employees who helped generate productive discussions or new ideas, thus showing that asking questions and seeking clarity benefits all.”

This creates a culture that can and will improve in participation and development.

“When curiosity becomes part of the organizational DNA, it changes not just how work gets done, but how the employees within that organization are made to feel valued and heard,” Lamb says of the byproducts of the practice.

“As a CEO,” Lowe says of what he does, “I often lead through two simple statements ‘What's your recommendation?’ and ‘I trust your judgement.’

“I still assume, in just about all operational facets of the business, that I am ‘the idiot’ in the room, which often times, that is the case. I hire professionals around me to give me information to make informed decisions.”

Lowe is a believer that leaders “do” first what they want and expect of their people.

“Much like Sinek did in his example, the best way for leaders to do this is model the behavior that supports these traits,” he says. “Finding teachable moments that support development around curiosity, confidence and courage is fundamental.”

Share

Communication Intelligence is a newsletter covering communication in a mostly professional context and includes news analysis, features, special reports, quote discussions, contributor advisory and columns.

Subscribe now

To sponsor a particular section in the newsletter or otherwise advertise, contact the publisher at Comm.Intel.Newsletter@gmail.com. If you are in need of professional writing for your organization, you can also write Comm.Intel.Newsletter@gmail.com.

NOTE

Did you know that 1 in 5 people on the planet suffer from chronic pain? Signal Relief is working to change the way the world deals with discomfort.

It is a groundbreaking relief patch that significantly reduces the impact of pain using clinically tested, drug-free technology.

Signal Relief is:

✅Reusable – every patch is backed by a 1-year product warranty

✅100% Drug-free – no oils, ointments, or medications are being put into your body

✅Wearable – made to move with you, not hold you back like plug-in wellness devices

✅Non-habit forming – safe to use daily or as often as you experience pain

With a 120-day risk-free trial period, you have nothing to lose but your pain.

Save 10% on your first purchase