How to (Unknowingly) Lose Your Credibility

Let's talk about the concept of credibility at work.
Because the truth is this: when some people speak, we listen. We take what they say at face value.
Meanwhile, when some others speak? We take it with a grain of salt. We tell ourselves to trust but verify.
So why does this happen? How do people end in that latter bucket?
Of course, sometimes it's because people over-promise and under-deliver. But sometimes it's not that simple.
Today, we'll talk about the subtle ways in which people (unknowingly) hurt their own credibility at work:
- Overuse of meetings.
- Short-sighted selling.
- Lack of filtering.
- Not closing the loop.
- Fuzzy attribution.
- Dealing in absolutes.
#1 Overuse of meetings.
Your credibility doesn't just come from what you say. It also manifests itself when you ask for other people's time.
So while there's nothing wrong with preferring live discussions over email correspondence or pings? Just know that you're making a conscious decision whenever you ask for people's time.
And if you demonstrate a pattern of asking to meet live for any topic, regardless of importance, urgency, or complexity? Your barometer for what is a good use of time may be called into question.
Of course, this might not matter in the short run. But over time, you might find it harder to get people to prioritize your meetings. People might also demand more context and justification before giving you their time of the day.
It becomes more taxing for everyone.
#2 Short-sighted selling.
Selling isn't only for frontline-facing teams. Even if you are in an internal-facing role, you'll still find yourself "selling" in order to influence your stakeholders.
What is "short-sighted selling" then? It's when you optimize for short-term outcomes, and forget that you're in a repeated game with your stakeholders. So you do things like:
- Exaggerating the urgency of your needs (to get support right away)
- Inflating the expected impact of an intitiave (to get leadership support)
- Focusing only on best case scenarios, and leaving out caveats (to expedite the process)
People who engage in short-sighted selling may get their way in the short run. But inevitably they risk their reputation and credibility over time.
π Subscribe for free to get Herng's newsletter directly in your inbox.
#3 Lack of filtering.
Credibility isn't just about ensuring trust (although that's a big part of it).
It's also about ensuring what you say carries full weight β and isn't discounted unreasonably.
And when do our opinions tend to get discounted? Ironically, it's when we're trying to say too much. We're the ones getting in our own way.
There's an old joke that goes something like this: a man owns an incredibly rare bottle of whiskey, which happens to be one of the only two remaining bottles on earth.
He then attends an auction and pays a hefty fortune to purchase the other remaining bottle. And when asked what's he going to do next?
He simply smashes the newly purchased bottle.
Because the truth is this: quantity tends to have an inverse relationship with value.
The same applies at work: more is not always better. You have a much better chance of landing your messages if you intentionally prioritize.
The person who asks for 7 things ("all equally important!") is unlikely to be taken as seriously as the person who asks for 2 things (and reiterates both consistently).
It's not that the former isn't trustworthy. They're just not as credible. Everything simply cannot be equally important and urgent.
And if you don't filter first yourself β your audience will do the discounting for you.
#4 Not closing the loop.
There's another way in which people lose their credibility over time. It's when you don't "close the loop" with others β especially when you're asking them for support.
For example, it occurs when you:
- ...ask for exec sponsorship on an initiative to secure resourcing (yet failing to provide updates on how things panned out)
- ...ask for prioritized data support (yet failing to circle back and share the resulting impact)
- ...ask people for inputs into your document (yet failing to share back the final output to show how those inputs were used)
None of these things are cardinal sins per se β but they do leave people dangling, which is never a pleasant experience.
And over time, as the pattern builds up? You might find it harder and harder to get support. Because people simply don't know what they're contributing to.
On the other hand, properly closing the loop creates a virtuous cycle. The best operators don't shy away from asking for help β but they make sure none of it is taken for granted.
Regardless of the outcome, they see it as their duty to "close the loop" and ensure others have visibility on what happened. This also strengthens the basis for future collaboration.
π Subscribe for free to get Herng's newsletter directly in your inbox.
#5 Fuzzy attribution.
Fuzzy attribution happens when you fail to make clear the source of what you're representing.
And when it starts becoming a pattern? It affects your credibility. People start wondering how strongly you actually believe in what you're saying.
Examples of fuzzy attribution include:
- Repurposing others' materials without giving due credit
- Making strong assertions based on analyses you haven't studied
- Taking liberties when paraphrasing and relying leadership directives
The point here is not that you can't steal with pride. It's that you should qualify your confidence level based on your depth of understanding.
The best operators acknowledge when they're repurposing material or relaying second-hand information β not just to give credit where it's due, but also to ensure that the audience has maximum context.
For instance, consider the following two statements:
- β"I have strong evidence that suggests that implementing this new feature will bring at least 10%+ uplift in user growth."
- π’ "I believe this new feature could drive significant user growth, based on results from past experiments. Do note, of course, that the experiment (which saw 10%+ uplift) was conducted in a non-US market and was from a couple years ago, so we may want to take the extrapolation with a grain of salt."
(The latter statement is a mouthful, of course. It could also benefit from being a bit more action-oriented in order to arrive at a "so what.")
But the point is this: as the listener, you'd much prefer someone take the second approach. Because you're not on the lookout for omitted context. And you're free to apply whatever discount you deem reasonable to this piece of information.
By contrast, in the first approach? All it takes is a couple instances of people realizing they're not getting the full picture before your credibility starts eroding.
#6 Dealing in absolutes.
Confidence and conviction can absolutely boost credibility. But confidence and conviction alone cannot be the basis for credibility.
Mistaking confidence for credibility, however, tends to lead to an erosion of credibility over time. You'll simply generate fatigue and skepticism for your audience.
Let's be clear, however: this is not to say that you should never be assertive.
Rather, the key is this: language matters. You can absolutely make bold claims β as long as you have the ability to make nuanced claims when needed.
In other words: you need different shades of grey in your comms toolkit.
The better you can articulate yourself across different parts of the spectrum, the more precise you can be in different situations β and the more credibility you'll gain.
(And when you occasionally deal in absolutes due to conviction? People will actually listen.)