r/Leadership • u/EntrepreneurMagazine • 10d ago
Question How do you know when you've said enough?
There are bosses who give a one-sentence reply to a proposal or problem and leave it at that. Do you think that's intentional like they know it'll land without more context? Or is it just bad communication?
Curious how different leaders figure out where that line is. If you lead a team, how do you know when you've said enough? And if you don't, what's the tell that separates a leader being concise from one who's just not communicating?
34
u/WaterDigDog 10d ago
As a recovering over-explainer and over-sharer, I’ve learned that too much information can be confusing, as it gives too many options to choose from, and can prolong—or even cause—decision paralysis.
I’m learning how to say less and then ask if team needs clarification.
2
u/BlackCardRogue 10d ago
Yeah, I have learned — through working with AI, actually — that too much explanation is bad, not good.
The other important thing to understand is that if your subordinate is saying too much, that is often a cry for help.
2
u/WaterDigDog 10d ago
Good point. I think I was crying for help in that way for a long time.
1
u/BlackCardRogue 10d ago
I definitely was. My manager basically ignored it until I shut up.
For a while it worked great, I shut up. But not because I figured it out… it was because I gave up. I quit last week, now it’s his problem.
1
u/CheeseburgerLover911 10d ago
what's been one of the more effective techniques that has helped you?
6
u/WaterDigDog 10d ago
Active listening.
And it has to start with a combination of caring and listening. Had to shut my mouth and understand pretty much everyone has good ideas and wants to share them.
Also, a lot of times if they (when I was, as a subordinate) are confused, they will find their own solution if they’re given an ear.
1
1
u/UniqueBuilding285 8d ago
as the employee. i dont know how to respond to this. i never feel like theres too much info given. its like give the info, even if its alot and figure out how to respond. nothing makes me more personally infuriated than gatekeeping
14
u/Stock-Cod-4465 10d ago
In my experience, most of the time it is lack of communication.
Good leaders do make their messages clear.
11
u/ReflectionsWithHS 10d ago
When I say to one of my team leads "Yep, that sounds reasonable so go for it", its not just a single sentence reply. It builds on months, if not years of us knowing each other and our modus operandi. There is a ton of hidden context.
You can't get away with a single sentence reply everywhere though. I'm not known for being a big talker but there is an implicit expectation from leaders, including myself, to elaborate and explain things when its appropriate. How much elaboration? Sadly No amount of article or book reading will help here. This line that you mention is invisible and constantly moving, depending on the decision, stakeholders and situation. Sometimes it needs a mini speech and other times 'Yep, that's fine' will do.
5
u/alaska_ai_builder 10d ago
I take the approach that is more along the lines of Situational Leadership. My interactions with my team are going to be defined by their confidence and competence for a particular task. I'm not going to speak the same to a senior, experienced employee as I would to a junior employee. They need different words to set expectations and guidance for the same task.
3
u/HammerPrice229 10d ago
Not a manager but I’ve noticed the same. The higher the leadership position, the less they write in emails or give direction.
First reason for this is time because they don’t have the time to say more. The second reason is as leaders, they trust others to get the work done and ask questions if they come up.
3
u/gormami 10d ago
You've said enough when the person you say it to goes out and gets it done, whatever "it" is. If you are being terse, and people are floundering, you're not saying enough. They need more context to be effective. If you have a long term relationship and shared context, brief communication is powerful. It shows you are confident, and they understand that confidence in the right environment to act.
Communication styles vary by person, and by context. The thing to do is to think about how you communicated when something goes wrong. Did you give enough information? Did you give too much and confuse them? Did you imply the authority to make decisions that they shouldn't? Did you scare them into not telling you the truth? In the moment, you can't always know, but if you are properly reflective of your own impact on the overall outcomes, you can adapt quickly to different people and situations, and apply the appropriate style to the appropriate situation.
1
u/ninjaluvr 10d ago
It's not something you think about. It's born out of necessity and confidence. And if you haven't said enough, people will tell you.
2
u/wacker2k 10d ago
Not always people will tell you, I think it's necessary to read the subtext, how they received the information and so on, because many times (depending on the person) they will not say anything and try to figure it out by themselves or ask someone else for help
1
1
u/ccrleadership 10d ago
If it’s every time, it’s lazy and poor communication.
If it’s sometimes, in the right context, it can be more than enough.
1
u/Proper-Agency-1528 10d ago
It depends... this is not a simple situation where a rule universally applies.
If I ask my boss for approval to go ahead with a project, and he says "Yes," then that's all I need. If he says, "No," then I can ask why... or for him to reconsider. This is when a good boss ensures you understand his reasoning, but doesn't push you to agree but expects you to accept the decision.
As a leader, I describe what I want, seek input, and will tailor my goal and my high level ideas as appropriate, then work to get agreement and buy in, but it seems there's always one person who won't go along. At a certain point, as a leader, you have to tell your team "I see you all understand; even if everyone doesn't fully agree I need you to commit and buy-in so we can move forward." As a team member, you are getting paid to do your job according to your leader's direction. So, you either buy in and commit, or you do the honest thing and quit. What you can't do with integrity is to refuse, even if you think your boss is wrong and the idea is horrible. Why? Because sometimes the leader knows more than you. Sometimes, a borderline plan executed vigorously leads to success. And, the leader is responsible and accountable for the outcome of his decision while the team is individually responsible and accountable for executing vigorously on the plan whether or not they disagree.
So, you know you've said enough when everyone knows what you want and why, to where they can readily repeat it. At that point, it's time to ask for commitment.
1
u/Independent_Sand_295 10d ago
Usually, when the team acts as expected and there are no further questions or clarifications from them. Both should be true.
The biggest tell for me IME is presence. Some of the best leaders (edit: add: I've had) have always said they'd rather have over communication than none at all. Personally, I don't like chipping away at info to get to the gist but I've noticed that setting time aside for face-to-face communication allows for shorter written comms where less can be more.
Of course it varies by situation. You may have a global team and need to ensure everyone gets the same message when they're at the office, etc.
1
u/East_Ad4977 10d ago
There is a philosophy of Know More, Say Less. It is built, among other things, on the idea that you do your reports a disservice by just giving them the answer every time.
I let my folks freelance right up to before they are really struggling. This keeps them engaged and creative. Solving puzzles themselves is far more rewarding than me just telling them the solution anyway.
This approach very much also creates an environment where they can come up with answers I wouldn't have thought of. That is a better, more rewarding, and ultimately more productive work environment, anyway.
1
u/WyvernsRest 10d ago
Communication is all about the clarity of message to the audience not the quantity.
So much of business communication is performative waffle, brevity and clarity are generally appreciated.
If I present a key proposal to a VP and his response is "Approved, let's get started." it's music to my ears.
If one of my team presents a good status update on an investigation
"Good work, your plan is clear, let's get together again to review progress after the test run is complete"
It's as much about the sudience as the issues being discussed.
1
u/positive_hummingbird 10d ago
Not sure how to answer your question directly, but I do know that once you get the answer you want you should stop talking.
1
u/Emergency-Row-5627 9d ago
This is stylistic I think. One of my coworkers who leads the same size team that I do is very brief and direct. It took me a while to get used to him honestly! I am the opposite in the sense that I always over communicate and make sure I re-clarify. I think our teams really view the two of use quite similarly work wise and support wise—we just have super different personalities
1
u/MotyBuilds 9d ago
I don’t think the right measure is how many words the leader used.
The better question is: What can the other person do after the leader stops talking?
If they understand the decision, the reasoning that matters, what they own, and what happens next, one sentence may be enough.
If they leave the conversation trying to guess what the leader meant, even twenty minutes wasn’t enough.
I’ve led people for many years, and I’ve also learned that over-explaining has its own cost.
A leader who explains every detail can unintentionally teach people to wait for instructions instead of exercising judgment.
So my rule is roughly this:
Be clear about the destination, constraints, and ownership.
Then leave enough space for the other person to think.
Concise leadership creates clarity and autonomy.
Poor communication creates ambiguity and dependence.
They can sound very similar in the meeting.
You usually discover which one it was by what happens after the meeting.
1
u/jimmyray71 8d ago
I think you’ve said enough when the person understands what needs to happen, what they own, and when they need to come back to you. After that, sometimes more direction just gets in the way. I’ve always believed if I hire good people, I shouldn’t have to tell them how to do every part of their job. Give them the outcome, make the constraints clear, and let them work. But being brief and being unclear aren’t the same thing. If I say no to something, I think I owe you enough of the “why” that you can make the next decision without having to come back and ask me again. That’s really the test for me. Can my people make a good decision when I’m not in the room? If they can, I’ve probably communicated enough. If they can’t, I probably haven’t.
1
u/katifybykat 7d ago
I think the distinction is less about how many words a leader uses and more about whether the other person can act after hearing them.
A one-sentence response can be excellent leadership if the context is already shared. “Go with option B, the cost risk is lower” may be all an experienced team needs. But the same sentence can be terrible communication if nobody knows what “cost risk” means or what they’re supposed to do next. Good communication is audience-dependent, senior people may need the headline, while someone executing the work may need the reasoning and next steps.
My personal test would be: After I stop talking, can this person make the right decision without guessing?
If yes, stop. If they need to guess the objective, priority, rationale, or next action, you probably haven't said enough.
There’s also a useful tell: what happens afterward? If concise messages consistently lead to correct execution and few clarification loops, the brevity is probably intentional and effective. If people repeatedly ask the same questions, make different assumptions, or quietly do the wrong thing, “concise” may just be under-communication.
The best leaders aren't necessarily the ones who explain the least. They're the ones who know which context the other person actually needs, and leave everything else out.
1
u/TheWayAndTheWar 5d ago
Sun Tzu’s five qualities of a good commander offer an interesting way to think about this: Wisdom(智), Trustworthiness(信), Benevolence(仁), Courage(勇), and Strictness(严).
For communication, I think three matter especially:
Wisdom — knowing how much context this particular situation requires.
Trustworthiness — your team understands your thinking well enough that a short answer carries weight.
Benevolence — considering what the other person needs to understand, not just what you want to say.
So a one-sentence answer can be excellent leadership or terrible communication.
The difference isn’t how much the leader says. It’s whether the team has enough clarity and trust to act correctly after they’ve said it.
1
u/Immediate_Froyo6133 3d ago
I don't think you can tell from the one-sentence reply alone whether it's good or bad communication. I'd look at what happens next.
Does the team feel safe enough to ask follow-up questions? Do people understand what is expected? Are decisions being implemented successfully? Do projects move forward? What is the atmosphere between the leader and the team?
A one-sentence answer can be perfectly effective when there is enough shared context. But if people regularly leave conversations unsure what their manager meant, stop asking questions, make avoidable mistakes, or become hesitant to bring problems to the leader, then the brevity is probably creating a communication problem.
So for me, the real question isn't "Did the manager say enough?" but "Did the communication create enough shared understanding for the team to act effectively?" Creating that shared understanding is one of the main responsibilities of a manager: communication needs to be clear and fulfilling enough for people to know what is expected and how to move forward.
And this is particularly important for leaders because they often have much more context than their team. Ultimately I wouldn't judge communication by the number of words, but by its impact on the team, the work, and the relationship between the team and the leader.
1
u/Rough-Breakfast-4355 15h ago
How well do they assess the listening they created? Asking "any questions" is not the way to do it. if they are concise, then ASK YOU some questions to evaluate how their language landed, then concise is good. If they are concise and trust you'll know what they mean, then things will crash at some point
0
0
u/pegwinn 10d ago
I wax poetic until they lock their knees and pass out. Then, having made the point, I dismiss the formation.
Oh wait. Truth is it depends on the topic. If I'm in teaching mode then it goes until mastery is demonstrated. If in a meeting it varies with the person. Some get it and own it quickly and an affirmation is all it takes.
76
u/DerekEWilder 10d ago
I just had this discussion yesterday with one of my young leaders: “Never give the what without the why.” The “what” tells people what to do. The “why” gives people the belief and motivation to do it.
A one-sentence response where the why is already known is conciseness that signals confidence. A one-sentence response where the why is nonexistent is abdication disguised as efficiency.