đź’ˇ Say the quiet part out loud: simplifying communication in high context environments, and more
Say the quiet part out loud: simplifying communication in high context environments
The Culture Map by Erin Meyer is a great book about how to improve communication between different cultures when you work at a company with a global workforce. Recently I’ve been thinking about how these concepts apply not just at a (geographical) global level, but within the systems of a single organization. What are the norms of how people communicate with each other in meetings, in email, over Slack? What type of confusion/misalignment might happen because of those norms, and how can it be improved?
There’s one dimension the book covers that I think applies particularly well to modern organizations, and that is the difference between high context and low contect communication.
High context settings are those where communication relies heavily on implicit understanding. The assumption is that everyone has the same frame of reference, which means a lot is left unsaid, with the belief that everyone “just gets it.”
Low context environments, on the other hand, are those where things are spelled out more clearly. There’s less assumption that everyone has the same background information or knowledge, leading to more explicit communication.
For instance, if you often don’t know what people are talking about in meetings and it makes you feel like you missed something obvious, you might be in a high context environment. Perhaps things move so fast that there’s an assumption that everyone already has all the context of the previous 10 meetings that happened about a topic. It’s natural for this to happen—but it reduces the effectiveness of our work and the health of our relationships.
I’ve been trying to be more deliberate about addressing this issue—at least for myself and the people I work with most closely—by actively going more “low context” in my communication. When something is implied through context, but not explicitly stated, I aim to go out of my way to make it explicit.
The goal is to ensure that no one has to feel like they can’t contribute (or be scared of making the “wrong” contribution) because they weren’t part of every conversation. By making the implicit explicit, we level the playing field. It’s not just about adding clarity to our communications, it’s about fostering an environment where everyone, regardless of their starting point or level in the organization, has the same opportunity to understand and contribute.
By breaking down our messages into clearer, more accessible information, we’re not dumbing down—we’re opening up. We’re building a foundation where everyone can work confidently, equipped with the knowledge they need to contribute meaningfully.
Keep an eye out for opportunities to say the quiet part out loud. To clarify a statement, or state the thing that appears to be said between the lines. It takes work and concentration, but it’s a shift that can make a big difference in how we work and relate to each other.
How Group Chats Rule the World
This essay on How Group Chats Rule the World (NYT Gift Link) is really great, and I agree with all of it.
The group chat can sustain indefinitely this thin wire of connectedness. Some might argue that this feeling is a deception, another screen-based way to stave off loneliness; I would say instead that it glows with potential. Because there is no practical end to the group chat, it can be a means of keeping the lights on, constellating a set of people who would otherwise be entirely separate.
Taylor Swift and the Good Girl Trap
You know an essay is going to be good when this is the preamble:
I am writing this piece in good faith (that you, as a reader, like to think more about the culture that surrounds you, whether it’s culture you love or hate or are ambivalent about) and that you are in turn reading in good faith (that I do not hate Taylor Swift, that this is not a takedown, that we’re talking about Swift’s image but we’re also talking about people’s reaction to that image).
But yes, this is a really timely and poignant piece by Anne Helen Peterson about Taylor Swift and the impossible trajectory of celebrity:
But sometimes, when you keep on winning — awards, sure, but also in your career — it doesn’t matter who you are or how hard you worked for those achievements. People are going to find it harder to root for you. It’s when domination turns into over-saturation: when honest missteps become weaponized, when the interpersonal comes to feel emblematic, when every move becomes overdetermined.
Whose job is it?
This is another fantastic post on career development from Johnathan and Melissa Nightingale. This bit really resonated with me:
I want to feel like I’m making progress. And to feel like the various work experiences I’ve had are all building toward a thing. I want to be able to talk about work, not as a string of jobs I’ve done, but as a career.
The Law of Propinquity And The Work From Home Dilemma
Here’s a solid, research-based take on remote work by Paul Taylor. He discusses what type of work is usually more successful when done in person vs. remotely:
If you are doing solid repeatable work, or work that requires intense solo concentration, you can work from pretty much anywhere. If you are in a discovery phase of work, and trying to fuse ideas together from multiple viewpoints remote working might be a hindrance.
It reminds me of a saying I heard somewhere: “In-person is where decisions happen, remote is where work happens.” I also really like this (new to me) concept:
The law of propinquity states that the greater physical (or psychological) proximity between people, the greater the chance that they will form friendships or romantic relationships. Other things being equal, the more we see people and interact with them, the more probable we are to like them.
Thanks for reading Elezea! If you find these resources useful, I’d be grateful if you could share the blog with someone you like.
Got feedback? Send me an email.
PS. You look nice today 👌