Episode 32: The Leadership Cost of Clarity

Clarity is one of those words that shows up everywhere in organizations.

It’s often asked for in moments when things are still taking shape. When directions are not fully defined, when perspectives differ, when parts of the picture are still unclear.

This episode explores what happens in those moments.

Rather than treating clarity as an obvious good, Giovanna D’Alessio looks at how and when it is created, and what can get lost when it comes too early.

It’s a reflection on the role leaders play in shaping how reality is presented, and on the tension between making things understandable and staying true to what is still unfolding.

The episode also touches on the position of HR in this dynamic, and the choices involved in supporting clarity while not smoothing over what is still uncertain.

The Orange Twist is hosted by Giovanna D’Alessio, MCC — reflections on leadership, culture, and change for HR professionals and organizational leaders.
Connect with Giovanna on LinkedIn.
New episodes released regularly. Stay curious.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Episode thirty-two, the leadership cost of clarity. There's a word that shows up a lot in organizations. Clarity. We need more clarity. Can you provide clarity? Let's make this clearer for people. It sounds reasonable, helpful even. Any many ways it is. But I've started to notice something. The request for clarity often comes at very specific moments. Moments where things are not clear. A strategy still forming, a direction still debated, or a situation that doesn't quite make sense yet. And instead of staying there, we move quite quickly. We translate that messiness into something clean, a message, a slide, a narrative that holds together. Lots of moving parts, quite a few unknowns, and some real disagreement in the room. At some point, someone said, we need to be very clear in how we communicate this. You could feel the shift. The conversation moved away from the actual questions into how to present it. What do we say? How do we position this? What's the storyline? All important questions, but something got lost. The uncertainty itself. The fact that not everyone in the room agreed. Or, for example, the fact that some implications were still unclear. Or even the fact that underneath the slides there were still open questions. And yet, what would go out to the organization would sound clear, aligned, decided. There's a cost to that. Not immediately, in the moment, clarity feels good, it reassures, it creates a sense of direction. But over time, something else starts to happen. People notice the gaps. They hear a confident message, and then they experience something more ambiguous on the ground. They see decisions revisited, directions adjusted, priorities shifting. And slowly trust erodes. Not because leaders are wrong, but because the clarity didn't match reality. So the issue is not clarity itself, it's the timing of it. When clarity is created too early, it becomes fragile. It needs to be updated, corrected, sometimes quietly replaced. And each time a little bit of credibility is spent. And there's also another effect. When leaders provide clear answers too quickly, teams adapt. They stop exploring, they stop questioning, they align, sometimes prematurely, because the direction seems set. And something important disappears from the system. Thinking, real thinking, the kind that takes time, that sits with contradictions, that doesn't rush to closure. I sometimes wonder if clarity in this moment is not just a service to the organization, but also a form of relief for the leader. Because not knowing is uncomfortable. Saying we don't know yet in a room full of peers or in front of the organization carries a certain exposure. It can feel like you're not in control. So clarity becomes a way to regain that sense of control, to stabilize the situation, and to move things forward. Again, very human, but maybe worth noticing. What kind of clarity are you offering? And what might it be protecting you from? There's a different move available. It's more subtle and not always easy to name what is clear and what is not. To say this part is decided and this part is still open. To share direction without pretending that everything is fully resolved. I've seen leaders try this. At first, it creates a bit of discomfort. People ask, so what does this mean exactly? They look for the missing pieces, and the leader stays there. Resists the urge to fill the gaps too quickly, holds the space a little longer. Something interesting happens then. Others start to step in. Different perspectives emerge. Concerns surface earlier, and assumptions get challenged. It's messier, but also more real. And over time it builds a different kind of trust. Not the trust that comes from always having the answer, but the trust that comes from not pretending to have one. Of course, there are moments where clarity is needed. Decisions have to be made. Directions have to be set. This is not about celebrating confusion. It's about noticing the reflex, the almost automatic move from uncertainty to clarity. And asking whether that move is always helpful, or sometimes premature. For HR, this becomes particularly relevant because HR often plays a key role in shaping how things are communicated. We help leaders craft the message. We support alignment. We translate complexity into something understandable. And that's valuable. But there's also a choice. Do we help smooth the message or do we also protect the integrity of what is still uncertain? Do we encourage clarity at all costs? Or do we sometimes say, maybe it's too early to make this sound so clean? That can be an uncomfortable position. You're not just supporting the narrative, you're questioning its timing. And that requires courage. There's a moment I often think about, a leader about to communicate a major change. Slides ready, message polished, and a quiet conversation just before. Are we saying this because we know it's true or because we need it to sound clear? It's a small question, but it can shift the whole tone. So maybe clarity is not the goal. Maybe the real work is discernment, sensing when clarity is helpful and when it's a way to escape the discomfort of not knowing. And if you think about your own context, where are you being asked to provide clarity right now? And is it time for it? Or is something still unfolding underneath?