Mike Fisher reminds us how important it is for leaders to be excellent listeners in Listen or Speak. This part particularly resonated because it’s a misconception about me that I’ve had to deal with my entire career:

Just because we speak softly doesn’t mean we act with hesitancy or indecisiveness. We can be a strong leader, setting the example, and making the tough decisions all the while communicating in a manner that keeps the conversation going and open to other people’s inputs.

I believe strongly in acting people-first as a leader, and I’ve found that when I’ve gone through interviews and/or job changes in the past there is a very common worldview that equates kindness with indecisiveness. It always takes a little while for people to realize that just because I believe we make better and more successful products when we treat each other well and truly listen to everyone’s input, it doesn’t mean I don’t know how to make decisions.

I haven’t quite been able to put my finger on why this misconception exists in the corporate world, but my current hypothesis is that collaboration gets confused with consensus, and there is a fear that “speaking softly” will result in a consensus culture where decisions take forever to be made. With that part—the dangers of consensus cultures—I do agree with. Consensus cultures often produce watered down, unexciting products. Products where endless rounds of give-and-take have worn down the original idea to a shadow of what it once was. Consensus cultures also wear down the teams working on the product, because no one really gets what they want, they just get some of it.

So I always try to make the point that I prefer collaboration over consensus. In collaboration cultures people understand that even though everyone gets a voice, not everyone gets to decide. People are able to voice their opinions and argue (kindly!) for how they believe things should be done. But it certainly doesn’t mean that everyone has to agree with every decision. That seems to help—so if you find yourself in a similar situation, give that framing a try!

Since this is something I have felt in my own career, it’s also something I try to be cognizant of in my dealings with those around me. Just because someone doesn’t dominate the conversation (see the “babble hypothesis”, which states that those who talk the most tend to emerge as group leaders), or refuses to engage in combative conversations, it doesn’t mean that their viewpoints and opinions are weak or invalid. In fact, the opposite is likely true.

The Culture Map by Erin Meyer is a great book about how to improve communication between different cultures when you work at a company with a global workforce. Recently I’ve been thinking about how these concepts apply not just at a (geographical) global level, but within the systems of a single organization. What are the norms of how people communicate with each other in meetings, in email, over Slack? What type of confusion/misalignment might happen because of those norms, and how can it be improved?

There’s one dimension the book covers that I think applies particularly well to modern organizations, and that is the difference between high context and low context communication.

High context settings are those where communication relies heavily on implicit understanding. The assumption is that everyone has the same frame of reference, which means a lot is left unsaid, with the belief that everyone “just gets it.”

Low context environments, on the other hand, are those where things are spelled out more clearly. There’s less assumption that everyone has the same background information or knowledge, leading to more explicit communication.

For instance, if you often don’t know what people are talking about in meetings and it makes you feel like you missed something obvious, you might be in a high context environment. Perhaps things move so fast that there’s an assumption that everyone already has all the context of the previous 10 meetings that happened about a topic. It’s natural for this to happen—but it reduces the effectiveness of our work and the health of our relationships.

I’ve been trying to be more deliberate about addressing this issue—at least for myself and the people I work with most closely—by actively going more “low context” in my communication. When something is implied through context, but not explicitly stated, I aim to go out of my way to make it explicit.

The goal is to ensure that no one has to feel like they can’t contribute (or be scared of making the “wrong” contribution) because they weren’t part of every conversation. By making the implicit explicit, we level the playing field. It’s not just about adding clarity to our communications, it’s about fostering an environment where everyone, regardless of their starting point or level in the organization, has the same opportunity to understand and contribute.

By breaking down our messages into clearer, more accessible information, we’re not dumbing down—we’re opening up. We’re building a foundation where everyone can work confidently, equipped with the knowledge they need to contribute meaningfully.

Keep an eye out for opportunities to say the quiet part out loud. To clarify a statement, or state the thing that appears to be said between the lines. It takes work and concentration, but it’s a shift that can make a big difference in how we work and relate to each other.