The Intensity Dial: Knowing When to Escalate and When to Back Off
š Bonus: 4 diagnostic questions + 1 AI prompt š
How direct should you be when communicating?
Iāve gotten this wrong in both directions. Too soft, and nothing changed. Too hard, and people got defensive or shut down entirely.
For example: Someoneās not delivering. You mention it once, gently. Then again. You offer to help. Nothing changes. You could be more direct, but you donāt manage them. You hope theyāll self-correct. They donāt.
Or the flip side: youāre frustrated, so you finally say the thing, and say it too strongly. They get defensive. The conversation goes nowhere.
Either way, the outcome you wanted didnāt happen.
So how do you adjust the intensity of your communication? Not just what you say, but how strongly you say it?
Thank you Jellyfish for sponsoring todayās article!
Most AI dev tool rollouts look like buying all the ingredients and hoping a meal appears. Everyoneās experimenting, nobodyās coordinating, and when leadership asks about ROI the best answer is āit feels faster?ā Thatās not cooking. Thatās just grocery shopping.
Groceries donāt become dinner on their own. But everyone wants to skip straight to the eating. The actual work? Telemetry, training, accountability, and the willingness to make real organizational changes, not just buy more licenses.
Ingredients donāt make a meal. Process does. If your AI rollout feels scattered, get help from Jellyfish, the Intelligence Platform for AI-Integrated Engineering.
I think of communication as an intensity dial. On the low end: support, gentleness, patience. On the high end: clarity, urgency, directness. Most conversations live somewhere in between.
In todayās article, youāll learn what happens at both extremes (and why we get stuck there or bounce from one extreme to another), how to find the right level of intensity for the moment, and how to move the dial gradually without going 0 to 100 and torching the relationship.
When the intensity is too low
Hereās an example from my coaching practice. A client of mine had just been laid off. We were working together to get him ready for interviews. I knew it was a hard moment.
The first week, he hadnāt done much prep. I was understanding and said: āTotally understandable, I know how emotionally taxing this whole experience has been. Letās regroup next weekā. The second and third week, same thing. I let it slide again.
By the fourth week, still no progress. Thatās when I realized the intensity I was communicating was too low. My job as a coach was to help him get a new job, and we were not making progress. I had to elevate the intensity, so I said: āI donāt think youāre taking this process seriously. And Iām worried.ā
Thatās what it means to adjust the dial. I didnāt go in hard from day one. But after two weeks of soft nudges not landing, it was time to turn it up. I wasnāt trying to scare him, but I had to be direct. The softness wasnāt helping anymore. It was just creating space for avoidance.
Ways this shows up in Tech:
You give feedback in a 1:1, but wrap it in so much cushion that the person walks away thinking theyāre doing fine.
Someoneās coasting. You soften the message: āMaybe this isnāt the right project for you?ā But underneath, the real message is: this isnāt good enough.
You keep waiting for āthe right momentā to have the hard conversation. The right moment never comes.
When weāre soft, we tell ourselves weāre being empathetic. But often, weāre just avoiding discomfort. Ours and theirs.
And if we stay soft for too long, resentment creeps in. You keep things polite on the surface, but underneath, youāre irritated. Thatās when the passive-aggressive behaviors start: pointed comments, vague frustrations, performance nitpicks that come out of nowhere. The real conversation still isnāt happening, but now the tension is.
Enjoying this article? Hit the ā¤ļø button or share it with a friend or coworker. šš»
When the intensity is too high
High intensity has its own failure mode. Youāre clear, direct, no-nonsense. But you come in too strong, too early, or with too little context.
I learned this one the hard way. When I was a first time tech lead at Google, someone on the team had written a poor oncall runbook. Instead of talking to them first, I criticized it publicly. In a group setting. I thought I was being direct and efficient, just flagging a problem so we could fix it. What I actually did was embarrass them in front of the team.
The runbook got fixed. But something else broke. That person stopped bringing ideas to the table. They got quieter in meetings. It took months to rebuild the trust, and honestly, Iām not sure I ever fully did.
Thatās what ātoo intenseā looks like. You might be right about the problem. But the way you surface it makes it impossible for the other person to hear it.
Other ways this shows up:
Jumping into feedback before the other person even knows thereās a problem
Letting things slide, then unloading all your feedback at once. It feels like an ambush.
Bringing feedback that couldāve been shared 1:1 for the first time in front of others
Suddenly escalating your tone because frustration has been building under the surface
When people get defensive or shut down, the focus falls on how you said things, not what you said. There is no productive conversation to be had then.
The middle range most people skip
Intensity isnāt binary. Itās not āsoftā or āhard.ā Itās a gradient, and the skill is learning how to move through it deliberately.
For simplicity, letās assume in the next paragraphs that intensity dial has a scale from 0 to 10.
Most people get stuck at the extremes. They camp out at level 1-2, hinting, asking open-ended questions, sugar-coating. And when that doesnāt work, and more time goes by, they jump straight to level 8 out of frustration. The middle gets skipped entirely.
The skill is controlling the dial. Moving from 3 to 5 when the first conversation didnāt land. Holding at 5 for another week to give it time. Recognizing when the situation actually calls for 7. Each turn of the dial sends a signal: this matters, and I need you to hear it.
Hereās what that looks like in practice. I specifically picked situations where you donāt have authority, but youāre still accountable for outcomes, because I found these to be what challenge people the most. The intensity increases as the issue keeps resurfacing.
Situation #1: Peer consistently missing 1-1s or breaking commitments to you
š¢ āHey, I noticed we had to reschedule our 1-1 again. Want to find a time that works better?ā
š” āI feel like we keep missing our sync time. These conversations are important for [specific reason]ācan we prioritize them?ā
š āWeāve rescheduled three times this month. I need these check-ins to stay aligned on [project/dependency].ā
š“ āIām going to be direct: when we keep canceling, it makes it hard for me to do my part effectively. I need us to either commit to this time or find a different approach.ā
ā« āIf we canāt find a way to stay connected regularly, Iāll need to bring [manager/project lead] in to help us figure out a structure that works.ā
Situation #2: Architectural concerns being dismissed
š¢ āCan we spend a bit more time on the long-term implications?ā
š” āIām concerned weāre trading short-term speed for long-term maintainability.ā
š āWeāve seen this pattern cause [specific problem] on [past project], and Iām worried weāre heading toward the same outcome.ā
š“ āAs the person whoāll be maintaining this, I need us to be explicit about the technical debt and operational risk weāre accepting.ā
ā« āI canāt sign off on this without documenting my concerns. If weāre not aligned on risk tolerance, this needs to go to [CTO/VP Engineering].ā
Situation #3: Another team blocking progress
š¢ āCan you help me understand your teamās priorities around this?ā
š” āThis dependency is on our critical path for [specific milestone], and weāre currently blocked.ā
š āItās been [X weeks], and weāre at the point where this is affecting our [Q1 release/customer commitment].ā
š“ āWithout this by [specific date], we will miss [specific commitment]. I need a clear commitment or an alternative path forward.ā
ā« āIf we canāt get [specific deliverable] by [date], Iām escalating to [VP/shared manager] that weāre missing [commitment] due to this dependency.ā
Please note that none of these starts confrontational. They earn their intensity over time. Each step removes ambiguity, becomes more and more straightforward, and gets clearer about how serious the impact is.
To help you practice dialing your intensity dial, check out the bonuses at the end of the article.
Conclusion
When something matters enough to repeat, it matters enough to say differently.
The dial is there to use. Turn it deliberately. Match the intensity to the stakes, and youāll get through.
Until next time,
Irina Stanescu
Did you enjoy this article? Hit the ā¤ļø button or share it with a friend or coworker. šš»
š Bonus #1: 4 Questions to know where to turn the dial
Have I had this conversation before without change? If yes, youāre probably too soft. Repetition without intensification doesnāt tell people the issue is serious.
If I asked them to rate how serious this is, would their number match mine? If theirs is lower, your message isnāt landing. If theirs is higher, you might be coming in hotter than you realize.
Have I given them a real chance to correct before escalating? Change takes time, so turning the dial needs to be gradual if you want to be fair to the other person.
If someone said this to me at this intensity, would I hear the message or feel attacked? If youād feel attacked, then donāt say it, no matter how frustrated you are. Itās not an excuse.
