6 Email Phrases That Undermine Your Authority (Plus Better Alternatives)
Your expertise is solid, your ideas are brilliant, but your emails might be sabotaging your professional reputation. Here's what research reveals about the subtle language patterns that can make you seem less confident—and how to fix them.
Email is basically the new business card. It's often the first (and sometimes only) impression you make on colleagues, clients, and potential collaborators. But here's what's frustrating: research shows that women are more likely to use language patterns in professional emails that can accidentally undermine their authority.¹
The good news? Once you know what to look for, these patterns are easy to spot and even easier to fix. We're not talking about changing your personality or becoming someone you're not—just making small tweaks that help your competence shine through more clearly.
1. "Sorry to bother you, but..."
Why it undermines you: Research from Harvard Business School shows that unnecessary apologies can reduce perceptions of competence by up to 20%.² When you apologize for doing your job, you're essentially telling the recipient that your request isn't legitimate or important.
The psychology behind it: Women apologize 50% more frequently than men in professional settings, often for things that don't actually require an apology.³ This linguistic pattern can make you seem uncertain about your right to make requests or share information.
Better alternatives:
"I'm reaching out to discuss..."
"I wanted to follow up on..."
"I have a question about..."
"I'd like to get your input on..."
Pro tip: Save apologies for when you've actually made a mistake. Your expertise and time have value—own that.
2. "I might be wrong, but I think..."
Why it undermines you: Studies show that hedging language (words like "might," "maybe," "I think") can reduce how credible your ideas seem by up to 35%.⁴ When you preface your expertise with uncertainty, people take your suggestions less seriously.
The research reality: Linguistics research reveals that women use hedging language 3x more often than men in professional communications, even when they're more qualified on the topic.⁵
Better alternatives:
"Based on my analysis..."
"The data suggests..."
"My recommendation is..."
"In my experience..."
When hedging works: Use softer language when you're genuinely unsure or when political dynamics require a more diplomatic approach. But if you're the expert in the room, let your expertise speak clearly.
3. "Just wanted to check in..."
Why it undermines you: The word "just" is what linguists call a "minimizer"—it literally makes your actions sound smaller and less important.⁶ Research shows that removing minimizing language from professional communications increases perceptions of authority by 25%.⁷
The pattern to watch: "Just following up," "just checking," "just wondering"—these phrases make legitimate business communications sound apologetic or trivial.
Better alternatives:
"I'm following up on..."
"I wanted to check in on..."
"I'm reaching out about..."
"I'd like an update on..."
The instant fix: Do a quick search for "just" in your emails before sending. You'll be amazed how often it appears unnecessarily.
4. "I'm no expert, but..."
Why it undermines you: When you explicitly disclaim your expertise, people believe you.⁸ Research from organizational psychology shows that self-deprecating introductions reduce how much weight people give to your subsequent advice by up to 40%.
The irony: Often, the people using this phrase actually ARE experts. Studies show that women are more likely to downplay their qualifications, even when they're the most knowledgeable person in the conversation.⁹
Better alternatives:
"Based on my work in this area..."
"From what I've seen in similar situations..."
"My experience suggests..."
"The research indicates..."
Confidence calibration: If you truly aren't an expert, try "I don't have deep expertise in this area, but I noticed..." This acknowledges your limitations without completely dismissing your perspective.
5. "Does that make sense?" or "Let me know if that's unclear"
Why it undermines you: While these phrases seem helpful, research shows they can actually signal insecurity about your communication skills.¹⁰ Constantly checking for comprehension can make you seem unsure about your ability to explain things clearly.
The gender gap: Studies reveal that women are 60% more likely to end explanations with comprehension checks, even when their explanations are actually clearer than men's.¹¹
Better alternatives:
"I'm happy to discuss this further if needed."
"Let me know if you have questions."
"Feel free to reach out if you'd like to dive deeper."
Simply end without a check-in phrase
When to use it: Comprehension checks are actually great when you're explaining something genuinely complex or technical. Just don't use them as a default ending.
6. "I could be wrong, but this seems urgent..."
Why it undermines you: Qualifying urgent requests makes them seem less urgent.¹² Research shows that indirect communication of priorities can delay action by up to 30% because recipients aren't sure how seriously to take the request.
The communication trap: Women are often socialized to soften requests, but when something is genuinely time-sensitive, hedging can actually hurt outcomes for everyone involved.
Better alternatives:
"This is time-sensitive because..."
"I need a response by [date] to..."
"This is urgent—please prioritize..."
"Quick turnaround needed on this..."
The context key: Follow urgent flags with specific reasons and deadlines. This helps recipients understand both the priority level and how to respond appropriately.
The Science Behind Email Authority
Research from Stanford's Virtual Human Interaction Lab reveals that small changes in email language can significantly impact how recipients perceive the sender's competence, confidence, and leadership potential.¹³ The study analyzed over 100,000 professional emails and found consistent patterns in how different linguistic choices affected outcomes.
The confidence-competence connection: Emails that used direct, assertive language (without being aggressive) were 40% more likely to receive timely responses and 25% more likely to result in the sender being approached for future opportunities.¹⁴
The gender factor: When researchers controlled for job title and experience, they found that women's emails were more likely to contain undermining language patterns, while men's emails were more likely to contain overconfident or aggressive language. The sweet spot? Confident and direct without being dismissive or demanding.
Quick Authority Boosters That Actually Work
Beyond avoiding undermining phrases, research identifies several positive language patterns that increase perceived authority:
Start strong: Begin emails with clear, specific subject lines and direct opening statements. "I'm writing to request..." beats "I hope you don't mind me reaching out..."
Use active voice: "I completed the analysis" is stronger than "The analysis was completed." Active voice makes you the clear agent of action.
Be specific: "I'll have this to you by 3 PM Friday" beats "I'll get this to you soon." Specificity signals competence and reliability.
End with action: "I'll send the updated proposal by Thursday" or "Please confirm receipt" beats trailing off with "Let me know what you think..."
The Cultural Consideration
Research shows that email authority strategies need to be adapted for different cultural and organizational contexts.¹⁵ What reads as confident in Silicon Valley might seem aggressive in more traditional industries. What works in individualistic cultures might backfire in collectivistic ones.
The adaptation strategy: Pay attention to the email style of successful people in your specific environment. Notice their language patterns, formality level, and communication rhythm. Adapt your authority-building techniques to match your context while still avoiding the undermining patterns.
When "Softer" Language Actually Works
This isn't about becoming a communication robot or adopting an aggressive tone. Research reveals that strategic use of warmer language can actually enhance authority in certain situations:
Building relationships: When you're establishing new professional relationships, some relationship-building language ("I hope you're doing well") can be valuable.
Delivering difficult news: Softening language can help maintain relationships when you need to deliver criticism or disappointing information.
Cultural navigation: In highly diplomatic or hierarchical environments, some hedging might be strategically necessary.
The key: Make these choices intentionally rather than defaulting to undermining patterns out of habit.
Testing Your Email Authority
Want to see how your current emails measure up? Research suggests these quick self-assessment techniques:
The screenshot test: Take screenshots of your last 10 professional emails. Read them as if they came from someone else. What impression would you form of that person's confidence and competence?
The minimizer hunt: Search your sent emails for words like "just," "maybe," "I think," and "sorry." How often do they appear unnecessarily?
The action agent test: How often are you the subject of action verbs in your emails? "I will," "I completed," "I recommend" versus passive constructions.
The response rate reality check: Are people responding to your emails promptly and taking your requests seriously? Low response rates might signal authority issues.
The Bottom Line
Your expertise deserves to be communicated with authority. These small language tweaks aren't about changing who you are—they're about making sure your competence comes through clearly in every professional interaction.
The research is clear: the way you phrase your emails affects how people perceive your capabilities, how quickly they respond to your requests, and how likely they are to seek out your expertise in the future. Why leave that to chance?
Start with one or two of these changes and notice the difference. You might be surprised how much more confident you sound—and how much more seriously people take you—when you let your authority shine through your words.
Your ideas matter. Your expertise is valuable. Make sure your emails reflect that reality.
-
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in Society, 2(1), 45-80.
Schumann, K., & Ross, M. (2010). Why women apologize more than men: Gender differences in thresholds for perceiving offensive behavior. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1649-1655.
Tannen, D. (2001). Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men at Work. Harper Paperbacks.
Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 941-951.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. Longman.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman's Place. Harper & Row.
Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 851-875.
Cialdini, R. B. (2006). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Harper Business.
Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: the costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 629-645.
Fragale, A. R. (2006). The power of powerless speech: The effects of speech style and task interdependence on status conferral. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 243-261.
Palomares, N. A. (2009). Women are sort of more tentative than men, aren't they? How men and women use tentative language differently, similarly, and counterstereotypically as a function of gender salience. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 472-498.
Byron, K. (2008). Carrying too heavy a load? The communication and miscommunication of emotion by email. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 309-327.
Hancock, J. T., & Dunham, P. J. (2001). Impression formation in computer‐mediated communication revisited: An analysis of the breadth and intensity of impressions. Communication Research, 28(3), 325-347.
Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346-371.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Blackwell.
