Why the Loudest Voices Win – and What Leaders Should Learn From That

Those who communicate precisely need subordinate clauses, whereas those who simplify fit on a bus. That is precisely why the loudest voices win – not because they are right, but because they communicate more clearly. What leaders can learn from that, and what they would be better off leaving alone, becomes clear when you look at the mechanisms behind it.

Three Sober Reasons Why Simplification Works

In spring 2016, the Brexit campaign Vote Leave rented advertising space on London double-decker buses. The message read: we send the EU £350 million a week – so let us fund our NHS instead. The figure was not invented, and that is precisely what made it so effective. Although the gross payment was roughly accurate at around £363 million per week, the word “gross” appeared nowhere on the bus. After deducting all rebates and return flows, only £181 million remained. The UK Statistics Authority stated as early as April 2016 that using the gross figure was misleading – yet Vote Leave continued using it anyway.

One pair of numbers, two messages – and the wrong half fitted on a bus, while the correct one needed a subordinate clause. What that dispute ultimately cost is now being calculated by others: a study by Cambridge Econometrics estimates the loss of economic output at around £140 billion per year, which is roughly fifteen times the amount that was originally being argued over.

Why does this kind of communication work nonetheless? Three sober reasons:

• No counter-check required: Those who simplify do not need to supply the counter-calculation. Those who differentiate do.
• No approval process: One poster, one post in the evening – no legal team, no works council, no sign-off from three departments.
• A genuine question gets answered: People who are afraid want to know where they stand – not how complicated it all is.

When Diligence Looks Like Evasion From the Outside

When someone asks whether AI is costing jobs in communications, I tend to say: that needs to be viewed in a differentiated way, it depends on the function, we are currently seeing a shift. All correct. What the other person hears, however, is: he does not know – or he is not telling me.

Diligence looks like evasion from the outside. The difference is not visible from where they are standing.

It sounds the same in many town halls. “We are currently examining various scenarios.” “I cannot say anything about that at this point in time.” Technically accurate. What is heard: something is coming – and they are not telling us.

When did someone in your organisation last name a bad number before explaining it?

The Wrong Lesson Would Be to Copy the Loud Ones

Simplifying works briefly and costs dearly over time. Anyone who has once oversimplified and then has to correct themselves spends years communicating against their own correction. Moreover, there is a second reason to avoid it: a campaign can disappear after the election. As a leader, you will be sitting in front of the same people again next quarter.

What Can Be Adopted: the Form, Not the Content

Although the content of populist communication is no template for leaders, the form can certainly be adopted. In concrete terms, that means:

• Name the bad number first – and the explanation afterwards. Not the other way around.
• Put your name under the statement – not “management” or “the executive team”.
• When in doubt, say “I do not know yet – I will tell you on the 14th” – rather than “we are currently in an ongoing process.”
• Supply the second number yourself – before someone else finds it and interprets it on your behalf.

That is slower than a double-decker bus. But it lasts considerably longer.

Go through your last internal communication and cross out every sentence that sounds like it is covering something. If little remains afterwards, you will understand why the loudest voices so often win – and what a leader who communicates clearly, without bending the truth, can set against that.

Your
Nikolai A. Behr