One of the things I see over and over again in my work with senior leaders is that communication is rarely just about communication.
It is about trust. It is about influence. It is about whether people understand the vision, believe in the direction, and feel confident following the person leading them there. It is about how a leader shows up in a meeting, how they respond under pressure, how they translate complexity, and how well they listen when the stakes are high.
In other words, communication is not a “soft skill.” It is one of the most important leadership skills we have.
That is why I was so excited to sit down with Dr. Laura Sicola, an executive communication coach, three-time TEDx speaker, and author of Speaking to Influence: Mastering Your Leadership Voice. Laura has spent more than two decades helping leaders at Fortune 500 companies, global nonprofits, and government agencies communicate with more authority, authenticity, and impact. Her work sits at the intersection of cognitive linguistics, neuroscience, communication psychology, and business strategy, and she is especially known for her “Vocal Executive Presence” framework.
What I appreciate so much about Laura is that she can take a huge body of knowledge and make it immediately usable. Communication can feel broad and overwhelming, but in this conversation, she broke it down into five common blunders that can quietly stall a leader’s career — and, more importantly, what leaders can do instead.
This episode felt relevant not because communication is a new topic, but because it is an evergreen one. Whether you are leading a transformation, presenting to senior executives, navigating a difficult meeting, or simply trying to get your ideas to land, the way you communicate shapes how others experience your leadership.
The Expert’s Curse: When Knowing Too Much Gets in the Way
The first communication blunder Laura named is one many high-achieving leaders will recognize: the expert’s curse.
This happens when we know our subject so well that we forget what it is like not to know it. We use jargon. We provide too much detail. We over-explain the technical pieces because, to us, they feel essential. But the listener may not need every layer of our expertise. They need to understand why it matters, what decision is needed, and how the information connects to their world.
I see this often with leaders who are brilliant in their fields. Their expertise is real, and they have earned the authority they carry. But when they are unable to translate that expertise for the audience in front of them, the message can become muddy. Instead of sounding strategic, they can sound buried in the details. Instead of building confidence, they can unintentionally create confusion.
Laura’s point is not that leaders should simplify to the point of being vague. It is that effective communication requires translation. The goal is not to prove how much you know. The goal is to make what you know useful to the person listening.
That distinction matters.
In leadership, influence is not measured by how much information you deliver. It is measured by what the other person is able to understand, remember, and act on.
Being Present Is Not the Same as Participating
The second blunder Laura discussed is one I found especially relevant for meetings: being present but not participatory.
There are many reasons people may not speak up in a meeting. Some are reflective thinkers who genuinely need time to process before contributing. Others may lack confidence, feel unsure of the room, or worry about saying the wrong thing in front of senior leaders. In some cases, silence is a thinking style. In others, it becomes a pattern that limits visibility and influence.
This is important because leadership opportunities often emerge in real time. People notice who is able to synthesize, ask a useful question, add perspective, or help the group move forward. If you consistently wait until after the meeting to share your thinking, your contribution may still be valuable, but it may not shape the conversation when it matters most.
I appreciated Laura’s nuance here. She was not saying everyone needs to become the loudest voice in the room. That is not leadership either. But she was clear that leaders need to develop ways to participate that fit who they are and meet the needs of the moment.
For reflective thinkers, that might mean previewing materials ahead of time, naming that they are processing, or offering one concise observation before the conversation moves on. For leaders facilitating meetings, it may mean creating structures that allow different communication styles to be heard.
Participation is not about performing. It is about contributing.
When the Nervous System Leads the Meeting
The third blunder Laura named was letting the nervous system lead the meeting.
I loved this framing because we have all seen it happen and many of us have experienced it ourselves. A leader gets triggered, defensive, rushed, or visibly frustrated. Their facial expression changes. Their tone tightens. Their body language shifts. They may still be saying the “right” words, but the message underneath the message is doing damage.
This is where executive presence becomes much more than polish. It is not about being emotionless or overly controlled. It is about having enough self-awareness and self-regulation to choose how you want to show up, especially when pressure rises.
Laura suggested a very practical tool: record yourself and review what you notice. That may sound uncomfortable, and for many people it is. But it can also be incredibly revealing. We may not realize how often we interrupt, over-explain, look away, tighten our voice, or signal impatience before someone has finished speaking.
This connects directly to what we know about the nervous system and communication. Under stress, our bodies can move into threat responses before our conscious minds catch up. When that happens, we are more likely to become reactive, constricted, or defensive. In leadership, that can undermine trust quickly.
The encouraging part is that awareness gives us more choice. Once we can notice the pattern, we can begin to interrupt it.
Authenticity Is Not Rigidity
The fourth communication blunder was confusing authenticity with rigidity.
This one is subtle and very important.
Many leaders want to be authentic, and I deeply value that. But sometimes authenticity gets interpreted as, “This is just how I communicate,” or “This is just my style.” Laura challenged that idea. True authenticity does not mean refusing to adapt. It means understanding your values, voice, and intent clearly enough that you can express them effectively in different contexts.
She used the metaphor of a prismatic voice, which I found so helpful. Just as a prism refracts light into different colors, we all have different facets of our communication. The way we speak to a board may not be the same way we speak to a close colleague, a direct report, or a community group. That does not make us inauthentic. It makes us responsive.
This is especially important for leaders who operate across cultures, functions, levels, and stakeholder groups. The same message may need to be delivered differently depending on who needs to hear it and what they need in order to understand it.
Adaptability is not a betrayal of authenticity. It is part of effective leadership.
Listening to Respond Versus Listening to Lead
The fifth blunder Laura shared may be one of the most common: listening to respond instead of listening to lead.
Most of us know the difference when we feel it. When someone is listening to respond, you can sense that they are waiting for their turn. They may be formulating their answer, defending their point, or preparing the next question before you have finished speaking. When someone is listening to lead, there is a different quality of attention. They are listening for meaning, context, emotion, assumptions, and what the moment requires next.
This kind of listening is not passive. It is deeply active.
Laura suggested taking notes during conversations as one way to stay grounded in what the other person is actually saying. I appreciate this because it is simple, practical, and immediately usable. It helps slow down the impulse to jump in. It also communicates that the other person’s words matter enough to capture.
In leadership, listening is not just a relationship tool. It is a decision-making tool. It helps us understand what is really happening before we move to solve. It helps us identify what is being said and what is being avoided. It helps us lead with more wisdom because we are not only reacting to the surface of the conversation.
Actionable Leadership Lessons for Leaders
What I hope leaders take from this conversation is that communication patterns can change. These blunders are not fixed personality traits. They are behaviors, habits, and learned responses, and with awareness and practice, they can be improved.
A useful place to begin is by choosing one high-stakes communication setting and observing yourself more intentionally. That could be a leadership team meeting, a board presentation, a one-on-one, or a difficult conversation. Notice whether you are translating your expertise clearly or overwhelming people with detail. Notice whether you are participating at the level your role requires. Notice what your body does when you feel challenged. Notice whether your version of authenticity is helping you connect or keeping you stuck. And notice whether you are listening for understanding or simply waiting to respond.
From there, pick one small behavior to practice. You might prepare a simpler version of your message before a meeting. You might commit to making one contribution in the room instead of waiting until afterward. You might pause before responding when you feel triggered. You might adapt your tone or pacing for a particular audience. You might take notes while someone else is speaking so you stay present.
The point is not to become a perfect communicator overnight. The point is to become more aware, more intentional, and more effective over time.
Communication Is a Leadership Multiplier
One of the reasons this conversation matters so much is that communication has a multiplying effect. When it is strong, it builds trust, clarity, momentum, and confidence. When it is weak, even good ideas can stall. Even strong strategies can become confusing. Even capable leaders can lose influence.
Laura’s work is a reminder that communication is not simply about sounding polished. It is about whether your message lands. It is about whether your presence supports your intention. It is about whether people feel informed, respected, and moved to action.
That is especially important now, when leaders are navigating fast decisions, hybrid environments, AI-driven change, and increasing complexity. The pace of work is not slowing down, which means leaders need communication habits that help people make sense of what is happening and what matters most.
For me, the heart of this conversation is that communication is a practice. It is something we can study, refine, and strengthen. And when we do, we become more capable not only of sharing what we know, but of creating the conditions for others to understand, trust, and act.
That is the kind of communication leadership requires.
And it is the kind of communication that can change not only a meeting, but the trajectory of a team, a career, and an organization.
