Over the weekend, I read an essay and listened to a podcast that really got me thinking.
The essay was written by Justin Welsh and titled “Manufactured Certainty.” He wrote about a 29-second clip of a successful CEO declaring that remote work is “white collar fraud,” and it went viral. Over five million people saw it, and they split into two camps, arguing for days over the statement. What was interesting to Justin, and felt like a subtle shift to me, was why nobody stopped to ask why a nuanced workplace debate got boiled down to two words engineered to make you angry.
Justin pointed out that sometimes we have to stop to consider the intentions behind certain statements. He suggested that often simple statements are manufactured rage bait and made a strong case for looking beyond oversimplification!
Later that day, while I was doing some weekend yard work, I listened to last week’s episode of The Dispatch Podcast. The hosts were discussing election integrity and played a clip of a few very smart, very successful Silicon Valley investors who confidently explained that the LA Mayoral election was a “one in a trillion” event and therefore stolen. This too was an oversimplified statement that sounded logical on the surface, but as The Dispatch Podcast hosts pointed out, there was more to the story!
It turns out the logic used was missing a few important facts (go figure…), and we shouldn’t be so confident about math anyway. Election outcomes are unpredictable despite Silicon Valley investors’ confidence and conviction.
I have to admit that I admire the skill on display here. The ability to distill a complicated message into a simple statement that resonates with people is rare and powerful, and I work on it constantly. I try to help my clients communicate with clarity, but reading these two pieces back-to-back, I kept asking the same question:
Are we distilling our way straight toward destruction?
I want to be an optimist, but I am concerned about our behavior!
Clear communication and oversimplification are not the same thing. I believe that clarity serves the listener while oversimplification serves the speaker. And that is why clear communication is a double-edged sword. The same edge that helps you cut through the noise and move people can also cut away the nuance and detail they actually need to make a good decision. When you strip out the context and conditions, you can certainly get it to travel faster and wider, but what if your conclusion is wrong? What if your simple, cut through the noise statement is wrong?
As leaders, we should worry about getting it wrong! We are all tempted, and I would argue subtly trained, to communicate in sound bites and simple-minded ways. The platforms reward it, and we see it on full display in the media.
But when a simplified statement creates outrage, we should pause and ask if we are heading in the wrong direction. Yes, it is important that we speak clearly with confidence and conviction, but we must also consider the variables.
And there is one more important point I hope you take away from this piece:
Just because oversimplifying fuels the media’s business model and helps with marketing and sales does not mean it should be the business model of the modern company or non-profit. Most organizations operate in uncertain, complex environments, and if their leaders flatten everything into soundbites and slogans in a desperate attempt to get attention, we will miss what really matters.
I don’t want to suggest that you should hedge everything or hide behind complexity. Being vague will not solve the problem either. But I do believe that we can respect both clarity and nuance. Say the simple thing after you have thought about the details. This may take more time and feel harder, but it is also more honest and the kind of leadership people can trust.
So here is the subtle shift:
The next time you feel the pull to flatten something complicated into a confident sound bite, stop to ask the question Justin and The Dispatch panel were really getting at. Am I distilling this to help people understand, or just to win the moment? Then keep the nuance attached, even when it costs you the easy applause.
Hit reply and tell me where you have seen this play out, or a place you are choosing the fuller version over the viral one. I always enjoy hearing about the subtle shifts you are making.
