A rising voice in workplace communication says three phrases many professionals slip into every day are quietly eroding credibility, particularly for women seeking to speak up or lead. The message comes from Kate Mason, PhD, a former world champion debater turned executive coach and founder of Hedgehog + Fox, who argues that these “minimizing” phrases—meant to be polite or considerate—often backfire, signaling that what you’re about to say is unworthy of serious attention. In her view, the pattern, which she labels an “imposing syndrome,” can constrain careers and widen gaps in presentation, influence, and advancement. Mason’s new insights appear in her latest work, and they sharpen a timely question for Thai workplaces: how often do everyday courtesy phrases undermine the very leadership and expertise many employees bring to their teams?
At the heart of the discussion is a simple but pervasive premise: language shapes perception. Mason, who spent a decade in communications roles at global tech companies before launching her coaching practice, has observed a recurring habit among professionals—especially women—of softening assertions, deferring judgment, and pre-emptively downplaying personal contributions. The aim, she notes, is not malice but respect, which in theory keeps interactions cordial. In practice, however, the habit can undercut the speaker’s authority and shift the focus from the substance of their ideas to the manner in which they deliver them. Her critique targets not mere etiquette but the cognitive signals that influence a listener’s willingness to engage, invest time, and act on a proposal. The broader implication for organizations is clear: if a substantial portion of the workforce is communicating in ways that unintentionally suppress their own impact, the organization may miss opportunities, slow decision-making, and reinforce status hierarchies.
Among the three phrases Mason calls out, the first is “It’ll just take a second.” Her analysis is direct: this opener often gives the impression that the upcoming conversation is trivial, while simultaneously setting an expectation of an immediate, almost instantaneous response. In reality, nothing truly takes a single second, and the time someone allocates to a discussion is a meaningful investment. The misalignment between the expectation created and the actual depth of the conversation can irritate colleagues, particularly if they realize the topic demands more thorough consideration than the phrase suggested. The practical alternative Mason offers emphasizes specificity and scheduling: instead of an assumption about how long the talk will last, propose a concrete block of time and lay out the topics to be covered. For example, stating, “I’m reserving an hour next Tuesday to discuss A, B, and C. Does that time work for you?” reframes the moment as a substantive, purpose-driven meeting rather than a brief check-in.
The second phrase, “No worries if not,” is a courtesy gesture that aims to soften a request, but Mason argues it rarely reflects reality. In many cases, a request carries a real urgency or constraint, and hedging with the conditional “if not” communicates a low priority or a wavering commitment to the ask. In the disciplined pace of many Thai workplaces—where clear expectations and timely follow-through are valued—such softeners can lead to procrastination or neglected tasks. A more effective approach, she suggests, is to state the need and the deadline with a clear rationale: “Could you share your edits by this afternoon? The final draft is due tomorrow, and your input is essential to meet the deadline.” The added context helps recipients understand the impact of their timely response and makes compliance feel like a collaborative obligation, not a rote favor.
The third phrase, “I’m not an expert, but…” instantly undermines credibility. By prefaceing a point with self-doubt, the speaker telegraphs uncertainty and invites the listener to discount the subsequent claim. This dynamic is particularly relevant in high-stakes or cross-functional Thai settings where expertise and authority are valued in decision-making processes. Mason’s remedy is simple but transformative: own your expertise and articulate it with confidence, while still inviting input and critique. Instead of hedging, lead with the value you bring and frame your perspective as a well-considered contribution rather than a tentative conjecture. For instance, rather than starting with a disclaimer, you might say, “Here’s what I’ve learned from X and Y, and what I propose is Y.” Then invite constructive feedback in a way that signals openness without eroding credibility.
Beyond the individual phrases, the research invites a broader reflection on how communication styles interface with leadership, gender dynamics, and organizational culture. A key takeaway is that even well-intentioned politeness can suppress agency and shape perceptions of competence. The psychology behind this is supported by historical observations showing that providing a clear reason for a request increases the likelihood of a favorable response—a principle Mason cites to explain why replacing a vague prompt with a reasoned, time-bound ask tends to yield better cooperation. In short, communicating with clarity, purpose, and explicit deadlines tends to invite engagement and action more effectively than soft-edged politeness that leaves room for ambiguity.
These ideas resonate with Thai cultural patterns in nuanced ways. Thai workplaces often emphasize harmony, respect for authority, and relational balance, which can intersect both positively and negatively with assertive communication. On the positive side, respectful language and collaborative framing can build trust and maintain social cohesion in teams and organizations. On the negative side, a bias toward deference—sometimes described in local terms like “kreng jai” or face-saving behavior—can discourage bold advocacy or the explicit expression of disagreement, especially from junior staff or women who already navigate a higher bar for visibility. The challenge for Thai HR leaders, educators, and managers is to cultivate communication practices that preserve cultural values while empowering all employees to contribute with confidence and clarity. This includes training that separates politeness from persuasion, teaching staff how to structure requests with clear timelines, and encouraging leaders to model direct, outcome-oriented dialogue in meetings and decision-making processes.
From a Thai policy and practice perspective, the implications are practical and actionable. In corporate training programs, coaching on effective communication should emphasize the three alternatives Mason promotes: precise time framing for conversations; direct requests with explicit deadlines and rationales; and statements of expertise that acknowledge value while inviting collaboration. In schools and universities, educators can incorporate communication modules that teach students how to advocate for their ideas without diluting their authority, a skill that will be valuable in internships, startup environments, and government workplaces where clear, actionable communication is essential. In public health and educational administration, where teams often must coordinate across departments and levels of care, adopting these techniques could help reduce delays, improve policy implementation, and strengthen accountability. For Thai families and communities, these changes could translate into everyday interactions—for example, parents requesting homework feedback from teachers or patients asking for care plans from clinicians—with less worry about overstepping social boundaries and more focus on outcomes.
Of course, any behavioral guidance must acknowledge limitations and contexts. Language operates within a dynamic social ecology, and not every scenario warrants the same approach. In some highly collaborative settings, a gentle, courteous tone can foster trust and a willingness to participate. In other contexts, particularly where urgent action is required or where expertise is undergoing rapid changes, the straightforward, time-bound, and confidently presented approach may prove more effective. It is also important to recognize that changing communication habits is a long-term cultural project, not a one-off adjustment. Leaders, managers, and educators should model the language shifts in daily practice, reinforce positive examples, and provide constructive feedback to help individuals calibrate their tone and content across diverse circumstances. In contexts like Thailand’s public sector or family-owned businesses, where hierarchical structures and communal decision-making are common, the balance between respect and assertiveness will often be negotiated on a case-by-case basis, with sensitivity to local norms and the needs of the team.
What does this mean for everyday readers—parents, students, workers, and professionals across Thailand? First, be mindful of how you frame requests and contributions at work. A clear statement of purpose paired with a concrete time frame signals that your input is substantive and worth others’ time. Second, replace self-limiting disclaimers with confident, experience-based language that highlights the value you bring, while remaining open to input. Third, cultivate a habit of explaining the rationale behind requests to invite collaboration and compliance rather than resistance. Practically, this could look like a manager circling back with a joint planning session that includes explicit milestones and owner responsibilities, or a teacher inviting student feedback with a pre-stated deadline and a brief rationale for why the feedback matters. For Thai organizations aiming to build more inclusive and effective workplaces, these steps offer a path to greater performance without sacrificing the cultural emphasis on respect and community.
In sum, the latest research echoes a universal truth about communication in any culture: clarity, purpose, and credibility compound over time. For Thai readers, the key is translating these insights into culturally informed practice. Respect and consideration remain core values, but they can coexist with assertive, well-structured communication that elevates ideas and accelerates action. Leaders, educators, and workers who experiment with reframing common workplace phrases—from time-bound requests to confidently stated expertise—may discover a more efficient, more just, and more empowering environment for everyone. In the long run, the goal is not to discard politeness but to align it with outcomes that advance teamwork, innovation, and shared success.