by Dr. Yasmine L. Kalkstein and Brian Gerardi
My (Yasmine’s) early experiences as a leader, despite effort and good intentions, were fraught with failure. One problem I ran up against were complaints about my lack of communication.
My subordinates would provide me with feedback like: “We didn’t understand how you were making your decisions.” “Why are we focusing on this?” Or “What is the point of this meeting?”
This took me by surprise, because, if there’s one thing I am, it’s transparent—or so I thought. Every question, concern, doubt, and humorous thought (unfortunately) echoes on my face. So, how is it that I was failing at transparency?
It turns out that feeling like you clearly communicated, while your teammates feel that you did not, is a common occurrence. Simply put, we often think we are communicating better than we are. In fact, communication issues are often at the heart of complaints about leadership. Why, in the examples I showed above, was I unaware of my lack of transparency?
The Illusion of Transparency
There is a cognitive bias at play, known as the illusion of transparency. Because we have perpetual access to our own thoughts, memories, and reasoning, we overestimate how salient our intent is to others. For example, we may assume our spouse understands how frustrated we are. After all, our own frustration is so apparent to us! The illusion of transparency leads us to overestimate the degree to which our thoughts and emotions are apparent to others.
This compromised perspective-taking influences our ability to communicate. For example, consider a leader who says to their subordinate, “Your performance was okay on X, and really good on Y.” The subordinate might walk away thinking “I was good at everything,” whereas the leader believes they communicated that X was subpar. In this case, the illusion of transparency might impair the delivery of feedback. A 2018 study examining performance appraisals reported that managers overestimate how well employees understand their feedback, particularly when they are delivering negative feedback.
Why is negative feedback less likely to be communicated clearly? People are often less direct when delivering negative feedback, often obscuring the message. An individual or organization’s performance depends upon receiving and acting upon constructive feedback. In particular, leaders who are higher in agreeableness tend to overly mask their constructive feedback with a positive tone, impeding clarity. This can prevent a team from accurately using the feedback to improve performance. The US Army has a doctrine manual (recently updated!) devoted to providing effective feedback (Army Technique Publication 6-22.1, Providing Feedback: Counseling, Coaching, Mentoring)
Communicating Intent: A U.S. Army Perspective
Mission Command doctrine was adopted to create an agile Army that can thrive under decentralized leadership. Communicating intent is one of the seven key principles in this doctrine. By clearly and concisely communicating the purpose of an operation, key tasks, and desired end state, the leader mitigates the need for micromanagement, allowing subordinates to execute disciplined initiative.
Communicating intent also builds trust. Trust in organizations is vital–particularly in a team-based organization like the Army. Trust grows when people understand the thinking of their leader. In other words, when we know why we are asked to carry out a certain mission, we are more likely to trust our leader and the choices they are making. Moments of change are an especially important time to communicate. Changes are naturally disruptive, however, support is more likely to be maintained when a leader takes the time to communicate what the organizational vision is, what isn’t changing, and what is changing.
How Can We Correct For This Bias?
- Explicitly identify your bias to become a more conscious and clear-spoken leader.
Implicit biases can be tough to change, however, sometimes just knowing you aren’t communicating as clearly as you think you are can change behavior. For example, in the 2018 study on performance appraisals, when participants playing the role of “manager” were explicitly informed that feedback given in the past was likely not understood by employees, they compensated and communicated feedback more clearly. Being aware that communication isn’t always as clear as we think helps us compensate and be more clear.
- Change your perspective.
Visualizing a situation from your audience’s point of view (a third-person perspective as opposed to your own perspective) might attenuate egocentric biases, better preparing you for how someone else might interpret your words. A third-person perspective likely reduces the emphasis on one’s own emotions or discomfort, allowing one to see what needs to be communicated with more clarity. The Army trains its personnel to “red team” or consider the perspective of the enemy in order to improve critical thinking, challenge assumptions, and expose oversights. While our audience is not our “enemy”, it may be helpful to brainstorm possible interpretations or reactions someone may have to the information you are providing.
- Consider how you title the communication or meeting.
What you call the communication matters. For example, the other night, I (Yasmine) was talking with my husband about upcoming decisions. He listened and then was ready to go to bed. I said, “Hold on, let me back up.” Borrowing from the Army officers I work with, I explained “I’m not just presenting options. This is a decision brief. We need to make a decision on this tonight before bed.” I can’t say he was happy that I delayed his bedtime, but in communicating my intent (which next time I’ll do upfront), we avoided frustration on both sides.
Before you begin a communication, prime the audience for the purpose of the meeting or communication. The Army already differentiates between meetings with different desired outcomes, including informing the audience, obtaining a decision, or exchanging information and coordination (Field Manual or FM 6-0: Commander and Staff Organization and Operations)
- Label your thinking as you talk.
Building off clear expectations for a meeting, talk about your intention while communicating. Using a phrase like “I’m just thinking out loud” lets your audience know that they shouldn’t panic or make big plans based on what you are saying. Letting your audience know that you’re “considering an alternative perspective for a moment” helps them track your thinking. I (Brian) once had a boss who was fond of saying, “tell ’em what you’re gonna tell ’em, then tell ’em, then tell ’em what you told ’em.” This can help you stay organized during public speaking engagements.
Consider this example: “Great work, team. We have some solid courses of action here. I’m just thinking out loud, could we couple this work with an existing initiative? I feel this nests really well with some of our parallel efforts. I definitely want to keep these COAs but I’m wondering if a third alternative exists that can do both. We have to make this decision in about 1 month, so let’s meet again no later than two weeks from now to re-engage, keeping this course of action as our main plan.” When you speak like this, your team can understand the context behind each piece of communication.
- Check your team’s understanding.
Sometimes, directly asking your team what they understand about an issue might help you understand their perspective, helping you know where to begin. This is a commonly used strategy in education, where a teacher might ask, “What do you know about X?” This helps prime students’ memories, and also allows the teacher to realize what misperceptions exist or what remains unknown.
Similarly, the Army employs “confirmation briefs,” more commonly known as a “backbrief” (as the subordinate would brief the information back to the commander to ensure understanding). These follow an operations order brief and allows subordinates to verify their understanding of the commander’s intent and the associated assigned tasks for their unit that support that aim. (Field Manual 5-0, pg. 7-10). In doing this, leaders not only provide subordinates this opportunity to verify their tasks, but also clarify intent if any part of it remains unclear.
- Create a psychologically safe environment.
A team willing to speak up and express a lack of clarity, helps leaders overcome their illusion of transparency. A willingness to express concerns and ask questions requires a psychologically safe environment. In general, this is an environment where speaking up will not yield negative consequences. This can be the hardest part for leaders because when the environment is psychologically safest, their teammates are sharing ideas and concerns and providing candid feedback, which can be a load for leaders to manage. If it appears that all is, “going well, everyone is rowing, heads down, nose to the grindstone, no complaints,” be concerned. This might actually indicate that people are reluctant to speak up.
The illusion of transparency can be corrected by followers feeling secure enough to (appropriately) challenge leaders’ ideas or ask for clarity. For example, in the 2018 study on performance appraisals, when participants who played the role of employee prefaced their feedback session by indicating to the “manager” that they wanted more accurate feedback, the “employee” better understood what the “manager” was trying to communicate. I (Brian) always charged my direct reports with an obligation to dissent and ensured they understood my intent to eliminate obstacles to their feedback.
Communicating Openly is a Vulnerable Act
Ultimately, open communication is an act of vulnerability. When you communicate your intent clearly, and overcome your own illusion of transparency, you may be opening up on how you’re arriving at your conclusions or what you’re currently thinking about. In doing so, you open yourself up for critical feedback. Notwithstanding the emotional challenge of this, you are more likely to get the best performance out of your team by sharing your intent.
Dr. Yasmine Kalkstein is an Associate Professor at the United States Military Academy at West Point. She is a character integrator in the Simon Center for Professional Military Ethic, and teaches for the Dept of Behavioral Sciences & Leadership.
Major Brian C. Gerardi is a Field Artillery Officer and an instructor at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He previously served in the 193rd Infantry Brigade at Fort Jackson and in the 82nd Airborne Division Artillery at Fort Liberty.
