How can leaders Elevate Workplace Conversations?
- Tamar Balkin
- 2 days ago
- 6 min read
"Quiet please, there's a lady on stage
She may not be the latest rage
But she's singing and she means it
And she deserves a little silence
Quiet please, there's a woman up there
And she's been honest through her songs
Long before your consciousness was raised
Now doesn't that deserve a little praise"
Quiet Please, There's A Lady On Stage by Peter Allen (Click here for the song)
“I had a crazy week. Our CFO gave a two-minute update in the exec meeting, but no one had any idea what he was talking about. There was no context. And then Bill just started talking, it was ridiculous, he had nothing of value to add and then no one could ask any questions.”
Coaching client
Regular readers know that, irrespective of whether the formal structure is between a manager and a subordinate, between two subordinates, or some other permutation, collaboration is key to success in organisations. This logically requires excellent communication skills, which are severely lacking in many organisations.
Where Workplace Conversation Breaks Down
Compulsive talkers
Some individuals chronically overtalk. They dominate conversations, ignore cues, repeat stories, and show little awareness of their impact. This “talkaholism” frustrates colleagues, slows progress, and often leads to social avoidance.
Researchers have found that some highly talkative individuals are compulsive talkers who struggle with effective communication. They speak far more than others want to hear, often say little of substance, and are unaware of how their behaviour affects those around them. They tend to talk at people rather than with them. This pattern has been described as “talkaholism”, similar to terms like workaholic or chocoholic. Although others usually recognise the behaviour as problematic, “talkaholics” themselves rarely do.
Unproductive talkers
Others contribute in ways that derail rather than advance discussion, such as irrelevant comments, personal attacks, or speaking only to allies who cannot act. These behaviours consume time, reduce candour, and disrupt focus.
The impact is predictable: irritation, delays, and reduced productivity. Teams often work more efficiently when the overtalker is absent.
However, remote work adds complexity, and under communication is often penalised more than over communication, because frequent updates signal engagement.
Silence
Researchers have found that although silence can occasionally be constructive, for example, giving others space to learn, it is usually harmful. It undermines decision quality, creativity, and ethical behaviour, and deprives organisations of vital information.
To better understand the complexity of silence, researchers have categorised it into: Acquiescent silence: resignation (“my input won’t matter”). Defensive silence: self-protection (“speaking up is risky”)
Researchers have identified the following reasons why people may withhold information
Anxiety or fear of consequences
Low psychological safety, especially across power, race, or gender lines
Concern about appearing incompetent
Belief that speaking up won’t matter
Desire to avoid conflict or protect others
Talking too little
Communication problems also arise when people speak too little within a message. Ambiguous responses are common when the truth would be uncomfortable or when information is incomplete, such as early in a crisis. Regular readers know that this is exactly when communication is vital. However, ambiguity can make people appear less warm, less likable, and more cautious, and it shifts the cognitive burden to the listeners.
Input bias: a troublesome phenomenon in conversationsResearchers have found that people confuse time spent with value created. This leads employees to over‑signal effort, long hours, excessive updates, even when the extra input adds no real value. People confuse time spent with value created. Researchers have found that people automatically link the amount of input with the quality of the output, even when they recognise that the extra input is irrelevant or even problematic. This strange phenomenon leads to all sorts of bizarre behaviour, including employees spending long hours in the office and sending lots of updates via email, all to create the perception of high productivity. In addition, researchers found that when a boss is told that an employee took more time to produce a document, they rated it more favourably. This occurred even in a context where time efficiency was critical. |
What’s really happening in workplace conversations?
Research suggests that, unfortunately, many workplace interactions lean toward the less productive end of the communication spectrum, particularly: Withholding, holding back ideas, concerns, or feedback and Disrupting, interrupting, dominating, or derailing discussion.
To improve collaboration and psychological safety, leaders need to encourage Productive communication, namely: Contributing, adding relevant ideas, insight, and value and Processing, active, thoughtful listening that builds understanding.
“ Anyone who has worked in a company with more than one employee has experienced the frustration and prevalence of problematic conversations, especially in formal meetings.”
Edmonson and Besieux
What can leaders do?
To improve communication in teams, researchers have found that productive engagement, contributing and processing should be strengthened, and counterproductive behaviours like withholding or disrupting should be minimised. To make these changes normal habits or ways of interacting, they need to be reinforced and practised by leaders in all communication settings.
To strengthen a culture where people feel able to speak up at work, researchers have found that leaders benefit from adopting a stance of humility and curiosity, particularly in the context of change. Humility can be demonstrated through openly acknowledging the need for others’ perspectives, while curiosity is expressed through thoughtful questions that draw people into deeper thinking. Together, these behaviours signal that contributions are genuinely wanted, lowering the interpersonal risk of speaking and making it more likely that employees will voice ideas, concerns, and insights.
Intentional silence and pauses
Researchers have found that people need time to process what’s being said and to adopt another’s perspective instead of rushing to assert opinions or interrupt. Processing is active listening aimed at understanding while remaining mentally engaged in silence; a small cognitive distance can help work through implications. This productive silence prevents people from talking past one another and enables conversations to move forward, sometimes in unexpectedly valuable directions. Teams that develop these conversational skills are better able to give full attention and assume others are likewise engaged.
Reduce disruption
In addition, leaders have the responsibility to reduce disruption. Disruption manifests in many ways in the workplace and includes thoughtless utterances, where the speaker could have, but did not, consider the impact on others of what they were saying, and how they were saying it.
What about listening? |
A recent literature review found that poor listening does more than reduce employees’ willingness to speak up about critical issues. It can also contribute to turnover, burnout, job dissatisfaction, and lower organisational commitment. In contrast, high-quality listening strengthens relationships and supports better outcomes for both individuals and organisations. Researchers have shown that defining listening solely as being attentive and responsive during a single conversation is incomplete. Speakers reported feeling heard only when listeners not only attended carefully in the moment but also followed through with the actions they expected. When attentive listening was not matched by subsequent behaviour, speakers experienced it as not being heard |
What can individuals do?
Employees can also contribute to communication breakdowns, not just leaders. Researchers have found that one significant barrier arises from employees’ attitudes toward authority. When individuals hold psychological resistance to authority in general, or to specific authority figures, they are less willing to listen, follow instructions, or share their perspectives. This resistance becomes a meaningful obstacle to effective professional communication.
So what about my client?
My client decided to observe and identify opportunities to model correct communication.
Readers challenge:
Please click here and email me some politely assertive hacks you have considered that will improve communication in your workplace.
Please click here if you would like to read my past leadership insights.
To subscribe to my blog, please click here: https://www.balkincoaching.com.au/leadership-blog
To set up a meeting with me, please click here:https://calendarbridge.com/book/tamarbalkin/
References:
Alderfer, C. P. (1977). Improving organizational communication through long-term intergroup intervention. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 13(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188637701300207
Amy C. Edmondson, & Besieux, T. (2021). Reflections: Voice and silence in workplace conversations. Journal of Change Management, 21(3), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.1928910 (doi.org in Bing)
Asselineau, A., Grolleau, G., & Mzoughi, N. (2024). Quiet environments and the intentional practice of silence: Toward a new perspective in the analysis of silence in organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 17(3), 326–340. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2024.9
Association for Psychological Science. (n.d.). Under time pressure, people tell us what we want to hear. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/under-time-pressure-people-tell-us-what-we-want-to-hear.html
Berg, A. K., & Kauffeld, S. (2024). Proactive verbal behavior in team meetings: Effects of supportive and critical responses on satisfaction and performance. Current Psychology, 43, 20640–20654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05806
Chinander, K. R., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2003). The input bias: The misuse of input information in judgments of outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(2), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00025-6
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461–488. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.61967925
Kriz TD, Kluger AN and Lyddy CJ (2021) Feeling Heard: Experiences of Listening (or Not) at Work. Front. Psychol. 12:659087. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.659087
May Busch. (n.d.). How to keep your boss updated. https://maybusch.com/keep-boss-updated
Parker, S. K., Wang, Y., & Liao, J. (2019). When is proactivity wise? A review of factors that influence the individual outcomes of proactive behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 221–248. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015302
Protzko, J., Zedelius, C. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2019). Rushing to appear virtuous: Time pressure increases socially desirable responding. Psychological Science, 30(11), 1584–1591. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619867939
Psychology Today. (2018). Verbosity. https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/how-to-do-life/201808/verbosity
Yang, J., Wang, B., Liao, Y., Yang, F., & Qian, J. (2025). Silence as a quiet strategy: Understanding the consequences of workplace ostracism through the lens of sociometer theory. Behavioral Sciences, 15(8), 1022. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15081022
Comments