The Case Against ‘Quick Calls’: Leonardo Freixas on Structured Communication

In a recent LinkedIn post, Leonardo Freixas delves into the often-overlooked costs associated with impromptu calls, advocating for more structured communication methods like email. Freixas challenges the common request for “quick calls,” arguing that they often hinder productivity rather than facilitate it.

The Hidden Costs of Impromptu Calls

Freixas begins by outlining the significant drawbacks of immediate, unplanned conversations. He posits that these calls come with substantial hidden costs that impact both individuals and teams. According to Freixas, these expenses are threefold:

“They break concentration.
They reward poor preparation.
They leave weak records.”

This perspective suggests that the perceived efficiency of a quick call is often an illusion, masking deeper inefficiencies. As Freixas notes, the interruption of focused work can be particularly damaging in environments that require deep concentration. Furthermore, he argues that the lack of preparation often associated with such calls can lead to unproductive discussions and a failure to capture important information effectively.

Email as a Tool for Clarity

Shifting the focus, Freixas highlights how email, when used appropriately, can enforce a higher standard of clarity and preparation. He explains that the act of composing an email necessitates a more structured approach to communication, forcing the sender to articulate their needs clearly.

Freixas states that email prompts essential questions to be answered before a conversation even begins:

“What is needed?
What is known?
What decision is blocked?”

This structured approach, according to Freixas, transforms vague requests into actionable items, ensuring that all parties involved have a clear understanding of the objective. This contrasts sharply with the ambiguity that can arise from unscripted verbal exchanges.

Leverage and the Nuance of Communication Channels

However, Freixas is careful not to dismiss live conversation entirely. He acknowledges that the effectiveness of favoring email over calls depends on having sufficient leverage. Without this leverage, he warns, live conversation can still provide access to crucial information that might otherwise remain undocumented.

The core of Freixas’s argument, therefore, is not a blanket rejection of calls but a distinction between different types of work and their communication requirements. He asserts:

“So the divide is not email versus calls.
It is structured work versus transferred ambiguity.”

In Freixas’s view, the decision to use email or a call should be dictated by the nature of the information being conveyed. As he elaborates, email is best suited for situations where information already exists and needs to be documented or clearly communicated. Conversely, calls are more appropriate when information is missing or needs to be actively surfaced through dialogue.

Re-evaluating ‘Quick Calls’

Freixas concludes by urging professionals to critically assess the true nature of what are often labeled “quick calls.” He suggests that many such requests are, in fact, an attempt to offload preparation work onto others.

“Most ‘quick calls’ are preparation costs reassigned to someone else,” Freixas writes, encouraging a shift towards more intentional and efficient communication practices. By advocating for structured work and clear documentation, Leonardo Freixas provides a compelling framework for enhancing professional productivity and reducing unnecessary friction in the workplace.