top of page
Search

Communication Norms in Teams that Win Games (and Meetings)

  • Writer: Barry Byington
    Barry Byington
  • 3 days ago
  • 3 min read

Why communication is the hidden bottleneck


Teams rarely fail because everyone lacks effort. They fail because information arrives late, decisions stay implicit, or critical messages never get confirmed. In other high-stakes domains (healthcare, aviation-style team training), communication breakdowns are repeatedly linked to errors and poor outcomes, which is why "closed-loop communication" is taught so aggressively.


Esports makes this obvious as the feedback loop is immediate and unclear calls become lost fights, missed timings, and messy resets. A recent Overwatch team study found that a communication intervention improved players' perceptions of performance, reinforcing that comms can be trained, not just "hoped for".


The "Comms OS" framework: a simple taxonomy your team can learn


The goal is to reduce ambiguity and cognitive load by making messages predictable.

  1. Call (what's happening/what we're doing)

Example: "Rotate now", "Hold here", "We're swapping priorities".

  1. Context (the "why" in 3-7 words)

Example: "Down two", "No ult", "Client escalated".

  1. Action + Owner (who does what)

Example: "Sam takes point", "I'll draft", "You confirm".

  1. Time or Trigger (when it starts/ends)

Example: "Next 10 seconds", "After this email", "If X happens, do Y".


This structure builds shared expectations, which is how teams develop stronger shared mental models linked to better team processes and performance.


Closed-loop communication: the cheapest accuracy upgrade to improve team norms


Closed-loop communication is simple: send → receive → confirm. The receiver repeats back the key message so the sender knows it landed correctly. We see this in healthcare team training materials which emphasize this to prevent silent failure under stress.


Use it for anything that can't be "assumed":

  • Deadlines, handoffs, approvals

  • Decisions in motion ("We are doing X")

  • Risk flags ("This is blocked because...")

Micro-script

  • Sender: "Please send the revised summary by 4pm."

  • Receiver: "Got it, revised summary by 4pm."

  • Sender: "Yes."


Modern teams win by reducing cognitive load

When pressure rises, teams do not rise to the occasion. They fall to their practiced defaults. This is especially true in the case of situational norms in communication.


To make the default easier:

  • Use fewer words. Replace paragraphs with calls + confirmations.

  • Standardize phrases. Same meaning every time (no creative synonyms mid-chaos).

  • Separate channels. One channel for decisions, one for discussion.

  • Create an escalation phrase. A consistent “stop and clarify” signal.


These practices support shared mental models ("we see the same situation in the same way"), which is one of the most reliable building blocks of coordinated action.


Debriefs that improve performance without blame

A good debrief is not a vibe check. It's a learning loop.


If you want one that works in esports and business, run a 10-minute AAR:

  1. What was the goal?

  2. What happened (facts only)?

  3. What worked and why?

  4. What didn't and why?

  5. What will we do differently next time?


Team learning research emphasizes that teams improve by reflecting on outcomes, mastering tasks, and improving group process, not by "trying harder".


Psychologically safe teams are more able and likely to speak up, correct errors, and learn quickly.


How to implement this in a team (without making it cringe)


Week 1: Pick two norms only

  • Closed-loop for deadlines/decisions

  • “Call + Context + Owner + Time” for requests

Week 2: Add one escalation phrase

  • “Pause: clarify decision.”

  • “Stop: confirm owner and deadline.”

Week 3: Add 10-minute debriefs

  • Only for client escalations, launches, or high-risk deliverables.

Week 4: Measure two outcomes

  • Rework rate (how often work comes back for fixes)

  • Cycle time (how long tasks take end-to-end)


Sources:

Closed-loop communication background (CRICO / Harvard RMF)


DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). Measuring shared team mental models: A meta-analysis.


Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.


Talking to Win: The Impact of Communication on Performance in Esports (Overwatch teams)


Edmondson team learning perspective (HBS publication PDF)


Last Updated: January 25, 2026.

Author: Barry Byington

 
 
 

Comments


bottom of page