We've all been on both sides of the same failed exchange. You finish explaining something, ask if there are questions, and receive confident nods all around. Three days later, your inbox is flooded with the same question asked 12 different ways.
Or the reverse: someone walks you through a process, you nod along because stopping them feels awkward, and the moment they leave, you think...THAT could've been a shorter meeting. Do they think I don't know what I'm doing?
The miscommunication runs in both directions. Over-explaining happens when we drown people in detail, mistaking thoroughness for clarity, while they smile and say "Got it!!" through big, wide eyes & a strained grin, long after their attention has wandered elsewhere.
Under-explaining happens when we assume shared context that doesn't exist, leaving people to quietly figure out the basics on their own (insert acronyms here).
Both miscommunications share a common root; we never actually verified the baseline understanding.
That's why "Any questions?" is the most useless phrase in professional communication (and trust me, as you can imagine, I used to say it A LOT until I realized this). It asks people to publicly admit confusion and expose a gap in their knowledge in front of colleagues and superiors. The social cost of raising a hand almost always outweighs the benefit of getting clarity. So we say nothing, we nod, and we figure it out later, or, more often, we don't.
The challenge is how to check for genuine understanding without making people feel condescended to, without sounding like you doubt their intelligence or competence, and...let's call it what it is...without sounding like an a*hole.
The goal is to land in the middle; enough context for clarity, not so much that you've lost them, and a way to verify you've hit the mark. Here's how to avoid both traps:
Check for baseline before you begin. Before launching into an explanation, take 10 seconds to gauge what people already know. "How familiar is everyone with the new compliance framework?" or "Quick show of hands, who's worked with this vendor before?" This prevents you from either boring experts or losing newcomers in the first 30 seconds.
Clarify acronyms and jargon, every time. You'd be surprised how many people nod along when they don't actually know what an acronym means. The first time you use one, define it. "We're updating the SOW, the statement of work, to reflect the new timeline." It takes 3 seconds and saves 30 minutes of someone pretending they're following along. If you're saying they should know what acronyms mean right now to yourself, then yes, maybe they should, but they don't, which is a whole other kind of conversation...so just trust me and do it, alright?!
State your assumptions out loud. "I'm assuming everyone's seen the Q3 numbers, so I'll skip the background and go straight to implications. Stop me if that's not the case." This creates an easy on-ramp for someone to say "Actually, I haven't" without feeling like they're derailing the meeting.
Match depth to decision. Not every topic requires the same level of detail. A quick status update doesn't need the same rigour as a strategic pivot. Before you explain anything, share what the outcome of the conversation is. Naming that "this is high-level and more details will be provided later" versus "we need to get into the operations today" helps people feel more comfortable either asking questions now or knowing they can wait until later.
Invite the teach-back. "Walk me through how you'd explain this to someone new on your team. OR "Since you'll be the ones delegating this to your team, how will you explain this to them? We can workshop together and anticipate any questions they may have in advance." The act of restating information in their own words confirms understanding and deepens it simultaneously. You'll immediately hear whether the core concepts landed or whether you left gaps, and clarify immediately.
Ask application questions, not comprehension questions. Instead of "Does that make sense?" *blows loud raspberry* Try "If a customer called with X situation, what would be your first step?" This tests understanding through a scenario rather than through admission of confusion. It gives people a chance to demonstrate competence while revealing what didn't land.
Finally, name the performative nod. When you sense nodding that feels more polite than genuine, call it out with some self-deprecation. "I'm getting a lot of nods, which either means I explained that brilliantly or everyone is being polite. Which is it?" This opens the door for honesty without putting anyone on the spot.
Why this matters at the leadership level
When senior leaders communicate without verifying understanding, the cost multiplies as the message cascades through the organization. A VP who walks out of a meeting with 80% comprehension will pass along 60% to their directors, who will pass along 40% to their managers. By the time the information reaches the people who actually execute the work, it barely resembles the original intent.
This is how strategic priorities become muddled. This is how you delegate something once but answer the same question six times. This is how execution slows without anyone being able to name why. This is how organizations end up with 6 people in 6 departments solving 6 slightly different versions of the same problem. When organizations bring us in to implement our S.P.A.R.K. Leadership Program, this communication dilution is often the first pattern we uncover.
The 2 minutes you spend verifying understanding saves 20 hours of rework, 200 confused email threads, and the slow erosion of trust that happens when people feel perpetually uncertain about what they're supposed to be doing.
A note on respect
Checking for understanding isn't used because you doubt your team; instead, it shows that you respect them enough to ensure they have what they need to succeed. It's about recognizing that communication is a two-way responsibility and that the burden of clarity belongs to the person speaking, not the person listening.
Remember, friends, clear is kind and at scale, clear is operational.
Kendra
PS. If this pattern feels familiar at the VP or director level in your organization, we’re onboarding up to two additional leadership teams into our S.P.A.R.K. Leadership Program for Q2.
We begin every engagement with a diagnostic to surface where clarity breaks down across expectations, feedback, initiative, and accountability.
If you’d like details on the diagnostic alone or the Q2 cohort, reply to this email with “SPARK” and I’ll send it over.
Unsubscribe · Preferences
