Why context is better than check-ins for trust

Teams don't need constant oversight to execute well. They need the right context to act without hesitation. Many leaders feel frustrated with teams that hesitate, ask for more clarification, or wait for sign-off. This often isn't a capability issue. It's a context gap. When people don't have the full picture, they can't act with confidence. They play it safe. They check in constantly and they wait. Context is the why behind the work. It's the background, priorities, constraints, and goals that guide decisions. Without it, teams feel like they are playing different sports on the same field. Confused about the rules, the goal, or even who they're playing with. They focus on the wrong things, unaware their daily behaviors are out of sync with what leadership expects. When leaders provide context upfront, they create the conditions for ownership. Here's what context looks like in practice: ✅ Set clear expectations early and restate consistently. ✅ Offer feedback that helps the team adjust in real time. ✅ Connect work to priorities, so teams see how they drive strategy. ✅ Share resource constraints, so teams make smart tradeoffs. Sharing more context doesn’t slow things down. It speeds up trust, alignment, and execution. When teams have the full picture, they work smarter. They collaborate better and second-guess less. They move without waiting for permission. What context is your team missing right now? ♻️ Repost to remind leaders: Without context, even the most capable teams will hesitate. 👋🏾 I'm Michelle Awuku-Tatum. I write about the leadership habits we think we're doing, but rarely practice consistently. 🔔 Follow me for more on human-centered leadership.

Most relationships don’t die from conflict. They die from lack of context. We all know this truth: The quality of your life is deeply tied to the quality of your relationships. But here’s something we don’t talk about enough: The speed with which we build trust in those relationships can be a game-changing advantage. And the not-so-secret key to speeding up trust? Context. When I’ve taken the time to offer context—about what I’m feeling, why I’m acting a certain way, or where I’m coming from—relationships have almost always deepened. When I haven’t? They’ve often faded. Or worse, broken. And it usually happens slowly. Two people talk every day. But over time, the conversations flatten. Not because they care less, but because they stopped sharing context. And when that context fades, connection quietly disappears too. No matter what kind of relationship—friendship, work, family, romantic—when context is missing, connection starts to wither. And when context is shared, even simple moments turn meaningful. Let me show you what I mean. ⸻ Conversation A Alex: Hey, how’s it going? Jordan: All good. You? Alex: Can’t complain. They smile. Maybe chat a bit. But nothing meaningful gets exchanged. It’s polite. Safe. And very forgettable. If this becomes a repeated pattern, the relationship starts to erode. Not because of malice. But because of a lack of shared context. Now flip it. ⸻ Conversation B Alex: Hey, how’s it going? Jordan: Honestly? I’m okay, but a little off today. Alex: Oh? Say more! Jordan: I’ve been juggling too much. Work’s fine, but I feel like I’m constantly reacting instead of thinking deeply. It’s starting to wear on me. Alex: I know exactly what you mean—I felt that way for weeks. Want me to share what helped? … That tiny bit of vulnerability changed everything. The conversation didn’t just pass time. It built trust. It added context. And it strengthened connection. It gave the other person a texture of what you are thinking and feeling. ⸻ We often hold back from sharing what we’re really feeling because we assume it’s “too much” or “too boring.” We say to ourselves, why would that even be interesting to the other person. They are going through so much. But here’s the thing: You’re not oversharing. You’re not burdening them. You’re letting someone in. You’re giving them a map of your life. A deeper understanding. A chance to really know you. If someone cares about you—and wants to build something real with you—context isn’t noise. It’s essential nourishment. One conversation with context might be interesting. But 50 conversations with context? That’s how trust and familiarity is built to create a strong bond. That’s how teams click. That’s how friendships last. So remember this: Don’t deprive people of context. You’re not just talking about your day. You’re building something that will enrich both your lives. Set context. It matters. And it’s one of the most generous—and underrated—gifts we can give each other.

🔊 𝗦𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝟭:𝟭𝘀. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀. I used to believe that more 1:1s meant more alignment. It felt responsible. Human. Transparent. But then I read Ron Carucci’s piece on 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘚𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘳 𝘓𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘚𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘏𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘚𝘰 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘖𝘯𝘦-𝘰𝘯-𝘖𝘯𝘦𝘴 - and it flipped a switch. Because what looks like clarity in a private meeting often breeds confusion in the hallways. 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘅: The more 1:1s you have, the more fragmented your team becomes. Why? 👥 𝗦𝗶𝗹𝗼𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀 Each exec gets their “moment” - but misses the broader conversation their decision disrupts. 🔁🔁 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆𝘀 You make a call in private. Now you’re explaining, justifying, translating it 4 more times. 🔒 𝗨𝗻𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝘀 Private access = perceived status. Politics creep in. Trust leaks out. 🧩 𝗙𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 Everyone thinks they’re rowing in the same direction - until they realize they’re not even in the same boat. “Your calendar is not your leadership style. It’s a mirror of your trust strategy.” The better move? Fewer 1:1s. More 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆-𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗱𝘀. Instead of endless check-ins, gather the 2–3 people who actually impact a decision. Solve the issue together. In real time. 🧠 Faster context. 🛠 Better execution. 🤝 Shared ownership. Because the real job of leadership isn’t to keep everyone updated. It’s to build environments where alignment is a default - not a deliverable. Save this for your next offsite. Or better yet - forward it to the person who still thinks “weekly 1:1s” are a strategy. https://lnkd.in/g4UKNEDp?

"So... what's new?" That's what most agency check-ins sound like. And it's exactly why the traditional agency-client relationship is failing. For decades, agencies have operated like order-takers. Clients brief them on what's happening, agencies execute tactics, everyone calls it a day. This transactional approach fails because great PR isn't about what you tell people to pitch. It's about context. Understanding the full strategic picture means knowing what's happening in the trenches and where a company is headed, not just where it's been. When we worked with a startup client all the way through their IPO journey to a $500M public company, we didn't just show up asking for updates. We talked to their engineers. Their product teams. Customer service. They let us in. Which allowed us to get them covered in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, TechCrunch, and CNBC... WITHOUT only relying on big announcements. We found the stories that mattered because we understood their business deeply enough to spot what journalists actually wanted to hear about. This kind of relationship isn't easy. It requires agencies to be proactive, creative, and strategic enough to dig for the gems that get coverage. And yes, confident enough to say no to pitch ideas that won't fly. And it requires clients to shift from vendor to partner thinking. More time, more openness, more trust. But it works. Big time. I'm seeing more companies wake up to this reality. They're tired of agencies that just "do PR." They want partners who are as invested in their success as they are. The question isn't whether this shift is happening. It's whether you'll be ahead of it or playing catch-up. P.S. If your company is ready to move beyond transactional PR relationships, let's talk.

Three years ago, I transitioned into engineering management. Initially, I was terrible and had no idea what I was doing. Over the years I've gotten a better sense for the role. Making the shift from individual contributor to engineering manager isn’t just about trading keyboard time for meeting time. It’s about recognizing that your core deliverable becomes context rather than code. When you’re an IC, your success is measured by the impact of the features, bug fixes, and pull requests you ship. As a manager, however, your job is to absorb the big-picture details—roadmap priorities, cross-team dependencies, product goals, the pulse of your own team’s morale—and then apply that context at the right moments, in concise and actionable ways. Here’s a snapshot of what I’ve learned in my own transition: - Context is King: Spend much of your week gathering information in meetings, Slack threads, 1:1s, and impromptu chats. You need this broad view to guide your team effectively. - High-Leverage Interventions: Whether it’s a project plan, a tough personnel decision, or a crucial piece of feedback for someone’s career growth—your insights enable you to cut through noise and make a decisive call. - Build Trust, Not Just Processes: People will only open up if they believe you genuinely care. Real context comes from genuine relationships, not just agenda-driven check-ins. - You’re the Beating Heart: If your team is the limbs getting work done, you’re the heart circulating vital information. A healthy rhythm of context-sharing keeps everyone aligned, productive, and motivated. If you’ve felt that pull to influence how decisions are made—or how people collaborate—management could be an incredibly rewarding next step. Yes, you’ll miss writing code at times, but the impact you can have on an entire team’s success is more than worth it. https://lnkd.in/emH_kWR3