Issue 002 | October 13, 2026

What over-explaining may be telling you about how you're leading the conversation

THE BRIEF

Clear communication isn't about saying less. It's about knowing what matters to the people you're speaking to.

Years ago, I was working on a product launch in Asia that was at risk of missing a critical retail window. The product had been developed specifically for that market, our forecasts depended on it, and we had made commitments to a commercial partner. Unfortunately, the required quantities hadn't been properly entered into our planning system, which caused production to be deprioritized. By the time we identified the problem, the manufacturing timeline had already slipped.

In consumer products, timing can be just as important as the product itself. Our selling season in Asia was different from the one driving much of the global business, and missing that window meant risking empty retail shelves. We needed to determine what could still be delivered, what would have to wait, and how to communicate those decisions to everyone affected.

We ultimately prioritized the lower-complexity items so retailers would have products available during the selling window. The more complex items would arrive later. It wasn't the launch we'd planned, and there was understandable disappointment among the people who had been counting on us.

What made the situation particularly challenging was that we weren't communicating with one audience. We had global production teams, local market teams, country leadership, senior executives, and commercial partners, each with different responsibilities and concerns. Everyone needed an accurate account of what was happening, but they didn't all need the same explanation.

That experience reinforced something I've come to believe about workplace communication: providing more information doesn't necessarily create more clarity. And providing less information isn't automatically the answer either.

WHAT MATTERS TO WHOM?

When leaders worry that their message isn't getting through, it's tempting to respond in one of two ways. We either explain everything, hoping the additional context will eliminate confusion, or we cut the message down because we've been told that effective communication should be concise.

Both approaches can miss the point.

The real question isn't how much information to share. It's which information the audience needs to understand the situation and fulfill its responsibility.

Consider what that meant during our product launch. The global production team needed the operational details required to evaluate manufacturing constraints and recovery options. For them, a short executive summary would have been insufficient. They needed the complexity because they were responsible for working through it.

Our local market team had a different problem to solve. They needed to understand which products would arrive, how the revised schedule affected the selling window, and what changes were necessary to their plans. Country leadership and senior executives needed a clear picture of the commercial exposure, available tradeoffs, and decisions requiring their attention. Our partners needed to understand how the revised delivery plan affected our commitments and what they could realistically expect.

Notice that the underlying facts didn't change. What changed was the emphasis, the level of detail, and the purpose of each conversation.

This is where tailoring a message becomes a leadership responsibility rather than a presentation technique. Before communicating, you have to understand what the other person is accountable for, what they already know, what they need to know, and what they must be able to decide or do afterward.

That requires judgment. If you're speaking to someone responsible for resolving a technical problem, removing the technical detail may actually create confusion. If you're speaking to an executive who needs to approve a tradeoff, explaining every operational step before identifying the decision may bury the most important information.

In both cases, you could be communicating accurately and still leaving the audience without the clarity it needs.

There's another dimension to this when the news is disappointing. People don't necessarily expect every problem to disappear, but they do need to understand its implications. Withholding information can leave them uncertain about what is happening, while overwhelming them with explanations can make it difficult to identify the actual response.

In our case, the phased launch was a practical solution to an imperfect situation. Communicating that solution appropriately helped different stakeholders understand what we could deliver, what had changed, and how we intended to manage the consequences.

It didn't guarantee trust or eliminate disappointment. The quality of the recovery plan mattered, as did our ability to follow through. But adapting our communication made the plan understandable to the people who depended on it.

That's the distinction I want leaders to recognize. Your responsibility isn't to tell everyone everything you know. It's to make sure each audience understands what it needs to know.

TRY THIS

Before your next important conversation, take a moment to answer three questions.

1. Who am I speaking to?

Think beyond their title. What are they responsible for? What perspective are they bringing? What do they already understand about the situation?

2. What information matters most to them?

Identify the facts, implications, or tradeoffs they need to understand. Some audiences will require more detail than others. The goal is to distinguish essential information from supporting context, not to eliminate complexity when complexity matters.

3. What should they be able to do afterward?

Are they making a decision, solving a problem, adjusting a plan, or managing expectations? That intended outcome should help determine how you organize the message.

You can test this with a situation you're currently managing. Imagine explaining it to your CEO, a client, and your team. The facts should remain consistent, but would each audience need the same information, in the same order, with the same level of detail?

Probably not. And that's precisely the point.

Looking back at that product launch, I remember the disappointment, but I also remember how much more manageable the situation became once we had a recovery plan and communicated what it meant to the people affected. We couldn't deliver everything on the original schedule, but we could make the decisions and next steps clear.

Sometimes leadership communication means delivering news people don't want to hear. The challenge is making sure they receive the information they need to understand it and respond.

Natasha