Rumley

Most leadership communication problems aren't really communication problems – they're meeting structure problems disguised as personality conflicts.
You know the pattern: issues that could be resolved in a five-minute conversation get pushed into weekly team meetings where they're discussed but not decided. Then they're escalated to leadership meetings where they're analyzed but not resolved. Eventually someone schedules a specific meeting to "align on next steps" where nothing concrete happens because the people who actually need to change their behaviour aren't in the room.
The best leaders I work with have completely different meeting cultures. They distinguish between information sharing, problem solving, and decision making – and they use different formats for each purpose.
Information sharing happens digitally or in brief stand-ups. Problem solving happens with the minimum number of people who understand the issue and have authority to implement solutions. Decision making happens with clear ownership and documented outcomes.
But most importantly, they distinguish between communication that requires input and communication that's just providing updates. About 73% of meeting time is wasted on information that could be shared more efficiently through other channels, leaving too little time for the conversations that actually need collaborative discussion.
The Remote Work Communication Reality
Here's something nobody wants to admit: remote work has revealed that many leaders were never actually good communicators in the first place.
They relied on physical presence, informal conversations, and reading body language to compensate for unclear direction and inconsistent expectations. When that scaffolding disappeared, the communication gaps became obvious.
The leaders who've thrived in distributed teams are the ones who were already communicating with precision and intentionality. They were already clear about goals, expectations, and decision-making processes. They were already creating structured opportunities for input and feedback.
The ones who struggled were often the charismatic leaders who'd built their effectiveness on personal relationships and intuitive understanding rather than systematic communication practices.
I've seen this play out repeatedly: the quietly competent manager who seems less dynamic in person often becomes the standout leader in a remote environment because their communication was always more substantive than stylistic.
Communication skills training courses that focus on building genuine clarity and systematic feedback loops tend to work better for distributed teams than programs emphasising presence and charisma.
What I Got Wrong About Difficult Conversations
For years, I taught structured approaches to managing conflict and having difficult conversations. De-escalation techniques, finding common ground, separating people from problems – all the classic negotiation and mediation strategies.
Then I started paying attention to what actually resolved workplace conflicts long-term versus what just managed them temporarily.
Most "difficult conversations" aren't actually about the surface issue being discussed. They're about deeper systemic problems: unclear role boundaries, misaligned incentives, competing priorities, or lack of psychological safety.
When someone consistently misses deadlines, the difficult conversation isn't really about time management. It's usually about unrealistic expectations, insufficient resources, competing demands, or lack of clarity about what's actually important.