The Communications Expertise We May Be Overlooking
5/5/20262 min read
In communications, being quick with words makes for a strong impression. If someone answers immediately or handles an unexpected question with ease, we tend to think they’re more capable of doing the work.
There’s good reason to value that ability. We work with executives, navigate difficult conversations and sometimes have very little time to respond. But I think we sometimes give it more weight than we realize. We hear a confident answer and assume the thinking behind it is just as strong.
Making room for different ways of thinking
As a neurodivergent communicator, I’m often better able to explain my thinking in writing. Sometimes I need to talk through the connections before I can put the whole thought together. What you hear at the start may be a fraction of what I’m working toward.
Giving someone room to work through an idea can lead to a better recommendation. They may be considering something that hasn’t entered the discussion yet or trying to understand whether the direction everyone agrees on actually addresses the problem. If we move on because someone hasn’t found a concise way to explain their thinking, we may lose a contribution that could improve the work.
Neurodivergent people don’t all think and communicate alike, and neither do neurotypical people. But if our standard of good communication is simply what feels familiar, we can overlook what someone contributes and carry that same assumption into how we judge messages.
Considering the audience
Our own ease with a message isn’t enough evidence that it works for everyone else. Our familiarity with the material can create a blind spot: We know the background and we’re used to the language. We may have even discussed the idea for weeks before anyone outside the organization sees it.
Our audiences don’t necessarily share that background. They also bring different ways of processing information. Some may need a connection made explicit or an opportunity to revisit an explanation in writing. We can’t assume those needs from a diagnosis. At the same time, we shouldn’t assume our team’s preferences are representative of the audience.
What we value
Different perspectives within our teams can help us notice assumptions we’d otherwise miss. But we have to be willing to question our own assumptions about the people offering those perspectives.
First impressions give us an incomplete picture of someone’s thinking. In a profession that values being articulate, it’s easy to favor people who can express a fully formed idea on the spot. I want us to be more curious about what someone is working toward before deciding what they’re capable of contributing.
How quickly they find the words shouldn’t determine how seriously we take the thought.