How Productive Teams Speak Differently

Welcome to the “The Catalyst,” Kevin Noble’s weekly newsletter about becoming a more effective leader.

🗒️ Past newsletters can be found online here.

❤️ If you enjoy this newsletter please forward it to a friend!

😎 If you’re that cool friend, sign up for the newsletter here

☕ Loved this? Say thanks with a coffee and keep this ad-free.

Quick Note

Despite ALL the noise about AI disrupting software, and even being relatively technical myself, I haven’t built any software with AI.

Since I’m not a developer, using software to solve issues or create new things just wasn’t an available option to me.

I tried Lovable, Bolt, and Replit a long time ago, but for whatever reason, could not really figure out how to do what I wanted.

I had a meeting on Friday with a software company we may deploy for a client, and they had spun up an entire custom front end on top of their base software just a few days after our initial meeting.

They even modified it during the call when I pointed out something I wanted to see done differently.

It was so easy and fast!

One of my favorite Stoic phrases is “if a human can do it, you can do it.” Seeing these guys spin this up really lowered the barrier for me to try.

During the call it triggered a spark of inspiration: I want a “karma” bot for my company’s Slack instance 🙂

If you don’t know what that is, it’s just a way to give magical internet points to your colleagues. You say something like “@joe +++++” and it gives Joe “points”. These points are stored in a perpetual database.

Trust me, it’s fun.

​Karma bots are available in the Slack marketplace, but pricing is $3/user/month or more. That adds up quickly!

Anyway, I finally decided to try this for myself.

I knew Anthropic’s Claude was supposed to do coding well, and I also knew they recently released a desktop app, but I didn’t know how to start.

So…I asked Claude’s normal AI chat interface how to start. After talking with it for a while, including details about what I wanted to build, it gave me a project brief to paste into the Claude Code interface (which is just a tab in the desktop app).

I worked back and forth with the Code and Chat interfaces. Code would do the work, then I’d get stuck on what to do next, so Chat moved me through it.

I had to sign up for and use things I’ve never used before (e.g. Docker). I had to trust some of the commands Code asked permission to run, or that it told me to run in my own Terminal. But in the end? I’ve got a functional karma bot that I built “myself.”

Start to finish this took less than a calendar day to do, and 2-3 hours of actual work.

I’m not done yet. My solution is running locally, so my computer has to be up with services active, or it doesn’t work. The next step is to figure out how to run this on cloud services so that it’s perpetually on.

I’m sharing all of this with you in the hopes that it also demystifies the process for you. You’ve probably also got some ideas – or could come up with some – for how software could make your life easier.

This process also put in stark relief the challenge that software companies will face. The market is hammering software companies right now in part on AI concerns. I knew AI would disrupt software, but I thought it would be a few years from now – it might be a lot faster.

If I can go from not knowing what I’m doing, to a functional simple app in 2-3 hours, what can people who know what they are doing accomplish? What can I accomplish with a few more reps under my belt?

The future is going to be disruptive, and fascinating.

If you build something, let me know how it goes!

Kevin

A Quote

“ Think of learning broadly, so you’re not just accumulating factual information but also deriving insights and meaning from it. Learn about your business, about yourself—your behaviors, how your mind works, what you’re good at—and about other people. That means taking in lots of information—and also reflecting on it. That’s when it will take you to a different place. — Ram Charan in “The High Potential Leader”

Three Things

1 – 🌡️ Thermopen This is the best kitchen thermometer I’ve ever used. It gives you a temperature really quickly, is accurate, and lasts for several years. A few colors happen to be on sale as I write this – Super Bowl team colors I think?

2 – 🖍️ Ohuhu Kaala Markers I’m a very visual person and recently decided I wanted to get into actual drawing again. I’ve got a few materials already, but didn’t have a fresh set of high quality markers. I did a lot of research and came across this brand. So far they’re working well for me! Check out all the color, tip, and style options.

3 – 👯‍♂️ The “Get Back Coach” Did you know there’s a “get back coach” on each team in the NFL? Once you know this exists, it’s super funny when you finally see it on a live broadcast.

(Please enjoy this 7️⃣ minute read)

Deep Dive on Speech Acts

Three years ago, I’m sitting in a monthly business review (MBR) my team has prepared. We’ve got 100s of programs, and 100s of people working across the business, so this is Important Stuff. And as the leader I’m accountable to make sure the work runs as smoothly as it can, we have high velocity, and hit our goals.

But most of the time I’d sit there with a scrunched up forehead, trying to figure things out, but not really following. These meetings were very cognitively draining.

I was doing a lot of the mental work. Decoding meaning. Guessing at what matters. And ultimately figuring out what, if anything, should happen next.

There’d be a line like “ticket resolution is 90%.” I’d have to think: What was it before? What’s the goal? On what timeframe? Have we tried everything, or have we not even intervened yet? What’s causing that number? Do we need to do anything about it?

I’d leave tired, and the work was only moderately clearer to me. It was both inefficient and ineffective.

As someone keen on personal responsibility, agency, and learning, I first looked inward. What do I need to figure out? How do I get smarter? How can I better prepare?

I also looked structurally. Do we change who is in the meeting? Do I change the template and what I’m asking for?

It turns out the problem wasn’t really me, or the structure. It wasn’t about intelligence, effort, or templates.

It was about how people use language.

​

Language Moves Work

Language doesn’t just describe work, it’s how work moves forward. It’s how we coordinate action in teams.

The work to decompose language, known as speech acts, comes from John Searle, and others, starting in the 1950s. Searle called them illocutionary acts 🤷‍♂️, but now you’ll find sources that have evolved the descriptors (e.g. 1, 2) to just call them speech acts, and gave the acts better modern names.

It turns out that some speech helps us understand reality, and some speech creates commitments.

In a team, you need both.

​

Two Kinds of Speech

There are six different speech acts, which can be divided into two groups:

Sense-Making Speech ​
– Assertions – Describes the current state of reality.
– Assessments – Explains whether that state is good, bad, or acceptable.
– Declarations – Officially sets or closes the status of something.

Coordination Speech ​
– Requests – Asks someone else to do something.
– Offers – Proposes an action you are willing to take.
– Promises – Commits you to a future outcome.

Assertions and assessments help us understand what’s happening. Declarations end interpretation and make coordination possible.
Requests, offers, and promises coordinate action.

If speech only contains the sense-making elements, it’s a conversation that goes nowhere. It’s those meetings where you end it and wonder what the action items are. It’s those meetings where you feel like you’re going around in circles.

If your speech is only in the coordination side (less common), it’s very efficient, but people won’t have the context behind the action. It’s the meeting where everyone is being told what to do, and they nod, but don’t really understand what was being asked or why it needs to be done.

​

The Common Failure Mode

Going back to my MBR meeting, remember the example of “ticket resolution is 90%”. This is a fact that describes reality, so we’d call this an assertion.

By itself, you can see how this does nothing!

It’s why I had to work so hard in those meetings. I had to uncover other assertions (facts), assessments (judgments on those facts), and declarations (e.g. done, not done) before I could even begin to get into the language of coordination and action.

When teams only use assertions, it puts all the load on the leader. The leader has to uncover more research, decide if it’s good or bad, infer expectations, and guess whether action is required.

Teams hang out in assertions A LOT. They’re safe. They’re objective. They’re non-political. In theory there’s little argument about an assertion.

Ticket resolution is or is not 90%. You either have two developers on a project or you don’t. Excel sheet A is or is not connected to sheet B.

Assessments, in contrast, are risky. They’re subjective. You’re sticking your neck out. Someone else in the room may very likely disagree with it.

And declarations? That’s presumptuous. “Who am I to decide whether this is done or not?”

Requests/offers/promises can feel like overstepping.

So teams retreat back to facts, and nothing gets done. But facts don’t run businesses.

​

Before / After Examples

Let’s look at a few examples of what full coordination might look like.

Example 1: Metrics

Before:
Ticket resolution is 90%

After:
Ticket resolution is 90% this month, down from 96% last month.
Our target is 95%.
We believe the drop is driven by enterprise complexity.
We’re testing an escalation change this month. No decision needed yet.

Example 2: Staffing

Before:
We have two developers on this.

After:
We staffed two developers, which matches the original plan.
Velocity is meeting expectations, and we’re on track to recover the slip by end of quarter.
No additional staffing needed.

Example 3: Delivery Work

Before:
Here’s the latest version.

After:
Attached is the fully updated version of the file.
All QA issues are resolved.
This version is final.
I’ll send it to the client by 2:00 PM unless I hear that you have a concern.

Even just writing out these hypothetical “after” examples lowered my cortisol! As a leader, they feel much more full. I have all the context, and I know what’s needed. I can follow the thread, assess risk, and know I can ask questions if needed.

​

Practical Rules for Daily Work

Every business update should answer three questions explicitly:
1. What is happening? (assertion)
2. So what? (assessment)
3. Now what? (request / offer / promise / declaration)

If any one of those is missing, the update is incomplete.

Never make your audience guess what something means or what should happen.

Artifacts don’t close loops. Files, dashboards, and links need speech acts attached; don’t Slack or email a file and think you’re done.

​

Useful Patterns

Effective communication alternates between the two groups. Think in pairs of speech acts operating together.

Assertion → Assessment → Request
This sheet isn’t connected.
That’s causing the totals to be wrong.
Can you link it and recheck the outputs?

Assertion → Assessment → Declaration
All QA issues are resolved.
I’m confident in the numbers.
This model is final.

Assessment → Offer
I think this could be clearer.
I can rewrite the assumptions section if you want.

Assertion → Request
The client hasn’t received the model yet.
Can you send it now?

​

Leadership Implications

Executives are the most expensive sense-makers in the system. Protect them and their time. Don’t pull them down into your world, send them off to do a better job in theirs.

Teams scale when they interpret their own work, and leaders make better decisions when meaning is already made.

Teams should be doing more than gathering facts and organizing them. They need to do the subjective work of assessments; judgment and meaning. They need to declare and close loops.

Leaders need to make a psychologically safe environment. They need to move authority to information.

If both leaders and teams do the work to make this happen, work becomes more fun, things happen more clearly, and people aren’t getting burnt out from unnecessary cognitive load.

​

Call to Action

For the next week, pay attention to moments where work feels stuck.

Find out what’s missing. Are you just getting facts (assertions), but missing judgment (assessments)?

Does the team need you to make a declaration (this is done / not done, do this / do that)?

Is it time to move out of sense-making and coordinate action? Move the team into requests, offers, and promises.

Don’t assume anything is implied. This isn’t overcommunication, it’s fully structured and complete communication.

Work moves forward when commitments are explicit.

Kevin

​

PS – Like the drama triangle and forms of mind, this is one of those fundamental frameworks I use and love. It makes sure things are moving operationally. If you find that it helps you, I’d love to hear about it. Share it with me at heykev@kevinnoble.xyz.

​