The Flavors of “Comms-plaining”
For the hardcore communications professionals who have spent way too much time going down a LinkedIn rabbit hole with other comms pros, perhaps you’ve encountered the term “comms-plaining.”
This is the not-so-subtle act of someone without a communication background explaining communication to a communication professional.
If you’re a comms pro and have never experienced this, please email me. I would like to study you and understand your ways.
For the rest of us, what we’re observing is what’s known as the Dunning-Kruger effect—a cognitive bias where someone overestimates their knowledge or ability in a specific area.
As Dunning and Kruger, the psychologists who lent their names to this research, noted:
“It takes competence to judge competence.”
So yes, when someone starts comms-plaining anything to you, you can confidently think to yourself—or boldly declare aloud if you’d like—
“I’ll be the judge of that.”
Overconfidence, meet lack of self-awareness
What the Dunning-Kruger effect uncovers is overconfidence paired with a lack of self-awareness.
These are the persistent traits behind comms-plaining.
At this point, it feels like we should treat these moments like a swear jar. Every instance of comms-plaining requires a contribution.
That could mean a round of drinks for the comms team and a built-in teaching moment. Hard to argue with that.
The flavors of comms-plaining
While overconfidence and lack of self-awareness are the common threads, comms-plainers tend to show up in a few distinct flavors.
The Well-Intentioned Comms-plainer
These individuals generally mean well when they offer what they believe is helpful advice.
They suggest things like turning something into an intranet article or launching a podcast because they think it will resonate.
They’re trying to contribute. In most cases, politely listening is enough.
The Comms-plainer in a Position of Power
Whether this person is your direct supervisor or somewhere in your reporting chain, this dynamic introduces complexity.
Instead of setting direction, they may:
Line-edit your work
Focus on tactics instead of outcomes
Insert themselves into execution
If they’re not open to your expertise, building trust becomes a challenge. In some cases, an impossible one.
Establishing yourself as a strategic partner may still be achievable, though it can take significant time and energy. It’s worth considering whether that investment makes sense.
The Malicious Comms-plainer
This group operates differently.
These individuals often use comms-plaining to erode confidence and assert control. They may:
Belittle your approach
Exclude you from key conversations
Attempt to undermine your credibility
In these situations, the issue is not your work. It’s their insecurity.
If they hold power, options may include seeking guidance from a trusted leader or HR. It’s important to be thoughtful about how and where those conversations happen.
What’s really going on
Across all of these scenarios, there is a human element at play.
Something is off when the person across the table doesn’t recognize you as a subject matter expert.
In some cases, it’s a knowledge gap:
They may not understand your background
They may not be familiar with the data or methods informing your approach
In others, it’s shaped by past experiences:
Not all comms professionals have the same level of expertise
Some leaders have worked with teams that operated very differently
It’s not uncommon to step into roles where previous teams expected fully drafted communications to be handed over for light editing and immediate send.
Yikes.
What you can do about it
Some comms-plaining moments can become subtle teaching opportunities.
Explaining your approach, your rationale, and your strategy can help shift perceptions over time. This is especially true for well-intentioned individuals and some leaders.
Others won’t shift.
For malicious dynamics, the focus turns inward:
Maintain your confidence
Avoid internalizing the behavior
Recognize the pattern for what it is
There could be anyone in your role, and the treatment would likely be the same.
The reality
For comms-plainers in positions of power, the path tends to split in two directions.
They are either:
Open to learning and capable of building trust over time
Or entrenched in their behavior
In the first case, consistency and demonstrated expertise can help shift the dynamic.
In the second, protecting your mental health becomes the priority. In some cases, that may mean considering an exit.
Because ultimately, comms-plaining tells you far more about the other person than it does about you.
