🧠What Really Broke Down: The Science Behind a Small Team’s Communication Misfire
And How They Rebuilt It—One Conversation at a Time
Even the most experienced teams can fall out of sync without realizing it.
What starts as missed messages or awkward silence can slowly erode trust, momentum, and clarity—especially in small businesses where every voice carries weight.
When Marianne called me, she didn’t say, “We’re falling apart.”
She said:
She said:
“We’re not broken. But something’s off. And I don’t know how to name it.”
That sentence told me everything I needed to know.
She runs a tight eight-person creative team. Smart people. Capable. Experienced.
But in the past few weeks, a new project had kicked up unexpected friction—missed cues, awkward silences, last-minute rewrites.
The work was getting done. But the energy was off. Trust was wearing thin.
But in the past few weeks, a new project had kicked up unexpected friction—missed cues, awkward silences, last-minute rewrites.
The work was getting done. But the energy was off. Trust was wearing thin.
This wasn’t a people problem.
It was a pattern problem.
It was a pattern problem.
And like most pattern problems, it lived in how the team was communicating—and how their brains were interpreting what they weren’t saying.
🧩 What Actually Went Wrong?
When I met the team, it became clear: they weren’t ignoring each other.
They were misreading each other.
They were misreading each other.
Each person was bringing their own mental filter to the table—built from past experiences, generational norms, emotional wiring, and assumptions about professionalism, hierarchy, and feedback.
Let’s break it down.
🔄 1. Ambiguity Resolution: The Brain Hates Not Knowing
The human brain is wired for closure.
When it encounters silence, vague language, or unclear expectations, it fills in the blanks automatically. This cognitive shortcut—called ambiguity resolution—is efficient but dangerous.
When it encounters silence, vague language, or unclear expectations, it fills in the blanks automatically. This cognitive shortcut—called ambiguity resolution—is efficient but dangerous.
The problem?
We don’t fill in those blanks with facts.
We fill them in with fear, bias, and past experience.
We don’t fill in those blanks with facts.
We fill them in with fear, bias, and past experience.
In this team:
- Marianne interpreted silence as alignment.
- Jordan interpreted it as rejection.
- Tasha saw it as a sign she had to take over.
- Eric thought silence meant autonomy was being respected.
Same quiet call.
Four different internal stories.
Four different internal stories.
🧠2. Semantic Interpretation Drift: Same Words, Different Worlds
When Marianne said, “We need to step it up,”
she meant: “This matters. Let’s tighten up.”
Jordan heard: “You’re failing.”
Tasha heard: “You’re not doing enough.”
Eric heard: “I hope no one’s expecting a weekend.”
she meant: “This matters. Let’s tighten up.”
Jordan heard: “You’re failing.”
Tasha heard: “You’re not doing enough.”
Eric heard: “I hope no one’s expecting a weekend.”
This is known as semantic interpretation drift—where tone, role, and emotion color the meaning of a shared message. And in small teams, where personal connection matters, it cuts deep.
🪞 3. Confirmation Bias: We See What We Expect
When tension rises, the brain starts looking for evidence to confirm the story it already believes:
- Jordan expected to be behind—so she interpreted silence as disapproval.
- Tasha expected to be unsupported—so she stopped asking.
- Marianne expected disengagement—so she saw hesitation as a lack of care.
They weren’t choosing conflict.
Their brains were trying to protect them—and accidentally creating disconnection instead.
Their brains were trying to protect them—and accidentally creating disconnection instead.
💬 Coaching Isn’t About Correcting—It’s About Creating Space
When I worked with this team, I didn’t give them a script.
I asked questions:
I asked questions:
- “What does respect look like to you?”
- “What tone helps you feel safe to ask questions?”
- “What do you assume when someone says nothing?”
And one by one, the stories began to shift.
They created their own team agreement.
They had real (and sometimes uncomfortable) conversations.
And they began to understand that “good communication” doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone.
They had real (and sometimes uncomfortable) conversations.
And they began to understand that “good communication” doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone.
Especially across generations.
Especially in high-trust, high-stakes creative teams.
Especially when no one wants to be the “problem.”
Especially in high-trust, high-stakes creative teams.
Especially when no one wants to be the “problem.”
🧠What Changed?
Not everything. And that’s okay.
Deadlines still existed. Clients still pushed.
But…
But…
- Tasha now asks instead of assuming.
- Jordan has language to request feedback.
- Eric checks in proactively instead of reactively.
- Marianne listens differently—and leads from a wider lens.
That’s what good coaching does.
It doesn’t fix people.
It helps people hear each other again.
It doesn’t fix people.
It helps people hear each other again.
🔑 Final Thought
Most communication breakdowns don’t start with shouting.
They start with assumptions.
They start with assumptions.
If your team is drifting, disengaging, or just off—
The solution might not be a performance review or another meeting.
The solution might not be a performance review or another meeting.
It might just be time to look at the unspoken rules that shape how you speak, respond, and assume.
You don’t need a complete overhaul.
You just need a shared language.
You just need a shared language.
0 Comments