Survey Says: The Perils of One-Way Communication
A few years ago, our family flew from Boston to Iceland for a two-week vacation. The flight is only 4 ½ hours, so I was happy enough to occupy myself by reading while sampling some chocolate-covered licorice—a popular Icelandic treat.
Predictably, however, I got a little restless after about three hours. So I started fiddling around with the soft-touch video screen on the seatback in front of me. I checked out our flight path and looked at a tourism video. Then I noticed another tab on the screen: “Surveys.” Why not? I shrugged and clicked on the tab. Immediately, a message came up: “There are no surveys at this time.” Oh, well. But then I noticed that there were two buttons below the statement. One said “True” and the other said “False.”
I suddenly felt like I was faced by one of those existential riddles. You know: “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" So I tried to think of how to respond to this “survey question.” Was it really true that there were no surveys at this time? It seemed that way, but I puzzled over which choice to make.
I finally selected “True.” To my amazement, another message popped up: “Thank you for participating in the survey.”What?! Did this mean that there really was a survey? Although I knew that I probably had just stumbled on some sort of technical glitch, I couldn’t help feeling like I had been given a one-question test… and I had managed to get it wrong!
As I was thinking about this experience recently, I could see some parallels to what we face as business leaders. In the digital age, we all rely heavily on the one-way communication of emails. How many times have you read an email that left you just as perplexed as I was when trying to make sense of that Icelandaic survey? Too often, you can end up exchanging a handful of emails over several days in order to get clear on something that could have been resolved with a 20-second meeting or phone call.
But what really haunts me is the other end of it. What if I’m sending out emails to my stakeholders that are leaving them as baffled, dejected, and incredulous as I was over that survey? I may never know. They may quietly brood over my message, or they might just hit “delete.” That’s another risk of relying on one-way communication: You often get no real data on how your message went over.
Email is a necessary and invaluable communication vehicle. But many leaders use it as their default vehicle rather than making more deliberate choices about which vehicles to use in different situations. When you use email, it’s going to be much more difficult to convey your authenticity, your concern, and your vision. It’s also going to be very hard to have real dialog with your stakeholders, as so much is lost when we take away the inflection, emotion, body language, and facial expressions that we can read and react to in a face-to-face meeting or on a videoconference.
When you rely too much on one-way communication, you might have as much trouble as I did determining what’s true or false.
Related content
Related content
Leadership is the work of creating shared understanding, and language is the primary tool for doing it. Yet we spend remarkably little time examining our words. Every decision, expectation, priority, and piece of feedback reaches another person through words. If those words aren't doing the job, neither is the leadership.
The lighthouse
Some years ago, a large company hired a strategy consulting firm to rethink its leadership model. The firm came back with a beautifully produced framework built around a central metaphor: the lighthouse.
Leaders, the model declared, should be lighthouses.
The metaphor quickly found its way into playbooks, performance reviews, onboarding decks, and town halls. People repeated it with the confidence of those who had paid a lot of money for it.
There was just one problem: nobody could agree on what a lighthouse was supposed to do.
Was it warning people away from danger? Guiding them toward a destination? Standing firm while everything else changed?
Eventually, the company hired another team to translate the metaphor into specific, observable leadership behaviors.
It was an expensive way to discover that a word everyone confidently repeated wasn't creating nearly as much shared understanding asthey thought.
Why jargon prevails
- Parking lot that
- Double-click
- Close the loop
Business jargon survives because it’s largely designed to manage social risk. Using it signals, I know how this world works. It demonstrates membership, competence, and credibility.
Business is messy, and leaders don't always have complete information. Abstract language lets us project confidence while preserving flexibility.
Altitude without traction
Specific language creates accountability. The more specific you are, the easier it is for people to disagree, question your thinking, orhold you accountable. That's part of the appeal of jargon. It creates distance between the speaker and the detail. The more abstract and elevated your language, the more strategic you sound.
A 2020 study by Harvard Business School professors Laura Huang and Andy Wu, published in the Academy ofManagement Journal, analyzed over 1,000 early-stage startup pitches and found that founders who spoke in abstract, visionary terms were significantly more likely to advance in the funding process.
A separate study, published in Applied Cognitive Psychology in 2025, found the other side: jargon raises how credible a speaker appears and lowers how much the audience retains.
The very language that helps people see you as a leader can make you less effective once you're leading.
The most trusted leaders tend to be the ones who resist impressive-sounding language and say the plainest version of what they mean.
In fact, four words probably do more for a leader's standing than any carefully crafted message: I made a mistake. Not "we encountered some headwinds," not "there were learnings from this experience," but the plain version.
The cost of comfort
When a conversation gets uncomfortable at work, it almost always feels easier to soften your message than to say exactly what you mean. You hedge, add qualifiers, cushion the point with extra reassurance, or leave the hardest part unsaid. Most of the time, you mean well. You don't want to discourage someone, damage the relationship, or create unnecessary conflict. The conversation becomes less uncomfortable for a moment, but the work often becomes harder afterward.
Amy Edmondson, Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School and author of The Fearless Organization, found that the fear of making a negative impression pushes people to stay silent exactly when clarity is most needed. According to her research, silence is one of the most consistent predictors of teams that miss problems early and never learn from them. The friction avoided in the meeting resurfaces later, at greater cost.
KimScott, former executive at Google and Apple and author of Radical Candor, calls this ruinous empathy: softening your message to protect someone's short-term feelings comes at the cost of the clarity they need. Her argument is simple and uncomfortable: clear, direct communication, even when it is hard, is an act of care.
The quiet power of saying what you mean
None of this is an argument for bland, colorless language.Vivid, precise writing does the opposite of jargon: it sharpens meaning instead of hiding it. Before reaching for a word, pause on two questions:
- What do I mean by it?
- What will my audience hear?
A surprising amount of corporate language wouldn't survive those two questions.
Leaders have more influence over language than they often realize. Whatever tone, vocabulary, and level of directness they model becomes the standard everyone else copies. Word choice is one of the quietest ways leaders shape culture.
This matters even more as we hand our language to AI. These tools can already learn to write in our voice. The question now is whether we've been deliberate enough about that voice in the first place to like what we see.
You can't predict the future. You can be disciplined about how you face it.
That's where Future Storming comes in. Future Storming is a process for looking at the trends and signals already visible in the market, understanding how those forces connect, and thinking more clearly about where they may lead.
Recently, we've been applying that lens to talent strategy, running Future Storming sessions with talent leaders across industries to understand which forces are already reshaping how organizations find, develop, and retain the people they need. When you look across those conversations, one thing is hard to miss: AI runs through almost all of the most significant trends, and not as a future scenario. It's already reworking the talent systems most organizations have leaned on for years, often quietly, and often faster than leadership teams have had time to respond.
From these sessions, five high-likelihood, high-impact shifts have emerged as the ones every talent leader needs to be watching right now. What follows is what each of them may mean for your organization.
1. The frameworks most organizations use to define great leadership were built for a different era
Skills and competency models describe work that no longer exists in many roles or that AI now performs alongside, or instead of, humans. The gap between what organizations say they're selecting and developing for, and what the work actually requires, is widening quietly.
This creates a real problem. Organizations that don't redefine what great looks like now will be developing the wrong people for the wrong future optimizing for capabilities that are becoming less predictive while under-investing in the ones that matter most.
- Rebuild leadership profiles from a future-back perspective, starting with where the business is heading, not where it has been.
- Focus on the distinctly human capabilities AI cannot replicate judgment in ambiguous conditions, relational intelligence, ethical reasoning, the ability to set direction when there is no precedent.
- Increase the use of behavioral observation in selection and development. It's the only methodology that shows how someone actually thinks and decides under real pressure.
The signal worth chasing isn't on a resume, it's in the room in how someone handles a real situation, under genuine pressure. It's the only place where someone can't prepare their way out of being themselves.
2. Human differentiators are the last mile AI cannot close
Judgment. Empathy. Creativity. The ability to navigate genuine ambiguity. These are increasingly what separates human contribution from AI output and they're precisely the things most talent systems have always found hardest to measure.
For a long time, organizations could afford to treat these as qualities that would emerge naturally with experience. That's no longer an option. The human differentiators are becoming the job. And most organizations still aren't measuring them well.
The methods exist behavioral assessment, simulation, structured observation. And AI is now making them accessible at scale in ways that simply weren't possible before. The question isn't whether to use them. It's how to deploy them thoughtfully, with the governance and transparency that -stakes talent decisions require.
- AI-powered behavioral observation that surfaces how people actually perform in the flow of work, (i.e. judgement, decision-making, adaptability) not self-report
- Assessment that evaluated how people work with AI, not just without it because that's increasingly what the role looks like
- Simulation-based approaches that reveal thinking in action - the kind of evidence no credential or output can provide
3. The talent pipeline is broken
AI is displacing the early-career work that has traditionally served as the on-ramp into organizational life. Those tasks once gave emerging employees something more valuable than work product. They gave them foundational experiences, relationships, and judgment. The kind of judgment that eventually grows into leadership.
The impact won't show up immediately. That's exactly what makes it worth paying attention to now. Within three to six years, benches will thin and succession pipelines will require far more intentional investment. Organizations will find themselves asking why their internal talent isn't developing the way it used to.
The organizations that get ahead of this have a real opportunity to build something more deliberate, more equitable, and better suited to the capabilities the future actually requires.
- Invest in real, simulation-based experiences, putting emerging leaders into the decisions and pressures that build genuine organizational judgment, not just task exposure.
- Redefine what early-career development is, building toward the capabilities the future requires, not the ones the old job description described.
- Build feedback into the flow of work. AI behavioral observation and practice AI role plays make continuous development possible at scale. The experience that used to happen informally has to be designed now.
4. People need to re-skill faster than any development model was built to support
People need to reskill faster than any development model was built to support. Most organizational development infrastructure was built around a longer, more stable arc of skill acquisition. AI is compressing that arc significantly.
The implication isn't just that training needs to be faster. It's that the whole architecture of how organizations identify, develop, and deploy talent needs to be built for continuous recalibration not periodic refresh.
- Prioritize adaptability and learning agility over static expertise. The ability to acquire new capabilities quickly matters more than the specific capabilities someone holds today.
- Treat reskilling as a continuous organizational process, not an episodic program.
5. AI is absorbing leadership work and culture is losing it's anchor
This is the shift that's easiest to underestimate, and hardest to recover from once it arrives.
Culture is what people see leaders do. The behaviors leaders model how they make decisions, how they show up in hard moments, what they choose to reward and what they let go are how organizational culture gets transmitted. It doesn't travel through stated values. It travels through visible human behavior.
AI is absorbing the work that used to make leaders visible as humans making choices. Performance reviews written by AI. Communications drafted by AI. Coaching conversations mediated by AI. When the distinctly human work disappears, so does the signal. People don't know what to watch anymore. And culture which depends on that watching starts to fray.
The organizations that navigate this well won't be the ones that use less AI, they'll be the ones most intentional about which leadership behaviors remain visibly human, and why.
The behaviors that held culture together need to be rebuilt around what humans uniquely contribute now and that starts with getting the success profile right. That's exactly what the Future Ready Profile is built for.
Strengthen empathy-centered leadership capabilities. The human dimensions of leadership matter more, not less, as AI takes on more of the technical work.
- Strengthen empathy-centered leadership capabilities. The human dimensions of leadership matter more, not less, as AI takes on more of the technical work.
- Reinforce organizational purpose and human-centered culture as anchors.
- Treat culture as something you design, not something you inherit.
What this means
The organizations that navigate this well won't be the ones that adopted AI fastest, they'll be the ones that invested just as deliberately in the human systems around it.
These five shifts aren't warnings. They're design problems, and design problems have answers. The talent systems that come out of this moment can be more intentional, more equitable, and more fit for purpose than anything we've built before.
At BTS, this is the work we're doing every day. If you'd like to think through what any of it means for your organization, we’d love to talk.
The thinking in this article was shapped by Future Storming sessions, including a SIOP 2026 workshop, and by ongoing conversations with talent leaders navigating these shifts in real time.
Hace unos meses terminé una sesión con un equipo de ejecutivos comerciales de una institución financiera mediana. Dos días intensos: cómo prospectar, cómo estructurar conversaciones centradas en el cliente, cómo crear valor en cada interacción. El grupo salió inspirado del taller.
Tres semanas después le pregunté a uno de los mejores participantes sobre cómo le había ido aplicando las nuevas herramientas. Me miró un segundo y me dijo, con total honestidad:
“La verdad... la semana siguiente fue igual que siempre, volví al viejo sistema”
El entrenamiento de capacidades es necesario. Pero sin una cultura comercial que lo sostenga, es un esfuerzo poco rentable para las empresas.
1. Las capacidades sin contexto no sobreviven al día a día
Un ejecutivo de ventas puede salir de un taller sabiendo exactamente qué preguntar, cómo estructurar una conversación de valor, cómo posicionarse como asesor estratégico en lugar de vendedor de productos. La semana siguiente, el peso de las métricas de corto plazo, la presión por resultados y las urgencias del día a día terminan arrastrándolos de vuelta a la rutina de siempre.
McKinsey (2024) encontró que más del 70% de las iniciativas de transformación comercial no logran sus objetivos — y la principal causa no es el diseño del programa, sino la falta de condiciones organizacionales para sostener los nuevos comportamientos.
El problema no es el taller. Es lo que existe o no existe en la realidad de la estructura comercial.
2. El cambio requiere alinear seis pilares
Lo que diferencia a las empresas que realmente transforman su modelo comercial de las que solo capacitan, está relacionado con seis pilares que operan simultáneamente.
1. Patrocinio de la alta dirección que empodera en lugar de solo exigir
2. Disciplina en gestión de cuentas/clientes estratégicos, con metodología y seguimiento
3. Conversaciones centradas en el cliente, no en el portafolio de productos
4. Cada interacción con relevancia estratégica, preparadapara crear valor medible
5. Nuevos comportamientos integrados al ritmo operativodiario y la cadencia del negocio
6. Líderes comerciales presentes que sostienen la cultura, no solo la expresan
Cuando falta uno, los demás no escalan y terminan provocando un círculo vicioso.
3. El liderazgo que sostiene vale más que el que exige
El patrocinio de la alta dirección y la presencia de los líderes comerciales sonlos pilares que más frecuentemente fallan. No porque los líderes no crean en el cambio, sino porque el día a día los jala de vuelta a revisar resultados, no a construir comportamientos.
Gartner (2024) señala que los equipos comerciales cuyos líderes hacen coaching activo y visible tienen hasta un 28% mayor probabilidad de adoptar nuevos comportamientos de manera sostenida.
El entrenamiento define el rumbo y entrega el mapa; el liderazgo es lo que realmente ayuda a navegar y sostener el cambio.
Conclusión
Si tu empresa está invirtiendo en transformar la forma en que sus equipos comerciales se relacionan con los clientes, la pregunta ya no es si el entrenamiento funciona. La verdadera pregunta es: ¿qué tan preparada está la organización para sostener el cambio?
Porque el talento existe. Las habilidades se desarrollan. Pero la cultura no se improvisa; se construye todos los días, con liderazgo, alineación y consistencia.
¿Cuál de estos seis pilares es hoy el más débil en tu organización?