• PwC US CEO Paul Griggs said he tried not to over-communicate in the past.
• He said he received feedback from staff who asked him to share more about his decision-making.
• Griggs said he continues to work on communicating frequently and via different styles and mediums.

After roughly three decades at PwC, senior partner and US CEO Paul Griggs said he still isn't above criticism.

He's also not exempt from changing his mind based on feedback he gets from across the firm. Griggs said he appreciates working at a company where leaders aren't afraid to change their minds in response to feedback.

For example, Griggs said he's "a big believer in the power of communication without over-communication." As CEO, he makes decisions and doesn't expect everyone to agree with every call. As a result, he didn't always explain his reasoning.

After taking over as CEO two years ago, however, he realized that he had been communicating less than some employees would like. He said he came in with a bias against overwhelming others with too much communication. Over time, he said he had grown tired of reading emails that were too long.

"So, I simplified communication," Griggs said. "Slowed it down."

Griggs said not everyone needs to agree with all decisions all the time, but they need to understand the reasoning behind it. That's where leadership and communication play a crucial role, he said.

"'If you don't communicate the nature of that decision and the outcome of that decision, then I fill the void, fill the vacuum with my own story,'" Griggs said employees told him.

It's feedback he has worked on incorporating, he added. He has been advised to share messages more than once, even though it wasn't his default approach.

"My team would tell me: 'No, seven times,'" Griggs said, adding that he's learned he should relay the message in different styles and mediums.

• My husband and I prefer to hash out disagreements via text message.
• It gives us time to pause before responding, and we're less likely to blurt out something hurtful.
• Not every argument is suited for text, however, and we still make time for in-person closure.

Most relationship experts seem to agree on one thing: Never have an argument over text. But my husband and I do it all the time — and it's actually led to some of the healthiest conflict resolution in our marriage.

I'm not saying that fighting over text is right for every couple, or every conversation. For me, though, it's become an unexpectedly effective tool for navigating conflict.

Here's why it works for our relationship, and what we've both learned in the process.

For me, fighting over text feels "safer"

After growing up in a pretty volatile household, I developed a deep fear of conflict.

Face-to-face disagreements can feel overwhelming, making it difficult to express myself honestly. Rather than fighting (or fleeing), I tend to "freeze" or "fawn."

Texting, on the other hand, feels like a safer space to air things out, since I don't have to hear or see the other person's responses in real time. I can take some space — whether for a few minutes or longer — to process what I'm feeling and respond. This has allowed me to get increasingly comfortable with sharing what I'm feeling and thinking in the moment.

Having time to process before responding is a gift

When our arguments have escalated in the past, it's because my husband and I speak before thinking.

That's the beauty of texting: it gives us both time to process our emotions, organize our thoughts, and craft a more thoughtful and genuine response on our own time, rather than blurting out something we'll regret in the heat of the moment. (If only we had the option to delete things in real life before saying them out loud!)

In fact, I can't think of a single time my husband or I have resorted to name-calling, "you always" or "you never" blanket statements, or other problematic tactics.

Arguments feel lower stakes

Many couples therapists advise against arguing over text because there are no nonverbal cues like tone of voice and facial expressions. But for me, that's actually one of the main advantages.

Without raised voices and eyerolls, disagreements often feel less emotionally charged. This helps me to not only stay calmer and grounded, but also more focused on the actual issue at hand.

Having a permanent written record minimizes misunderstandings

I've found it super useful to be able to scroll back and reread what we wrote during a conflict. Not only does this enable us to dodge those pointless and cyclical debates about what was actually said (since we have the receipts), but it allows us an opportunity to reflect on times when we might have been overly harsh or defensive — and even notice patterns in our communication that we'd like to work on.

There's no interrupting

I'll admit it: I have a habit of steamrolling when I get heated (and so does my husband). It probably stems from never having had the chance to share what I was really feeling as a child — so now, when I do, I feel an intense urgency to get my message across.

We've gotten a lot better about gently pointing it out to each other when it happens, but texting eliminates this entirely. We can both say our piece without accidentally cutting each other off.

Not every fight is suitable for text

While texting has been a valuable tool for hashing out disagreements, some things need to be addressed face-to-face — and learning to distinguish between them has been key.

For example, if the argument is about a complex, long-standing issue rather than a one-off incident — or about a sensitive topic that demands empathy — we'll wait until we have a chance to tackle it in person.

Text arguments still call for in-person closure

Even when we do manage to resolve a dispute digitally, there's still one final step that can't happen over text: repair.

Typically, this entails checking in with each other to ask, "Is there anything else you need from me to move on from this?"

Sometimes getting real closure is as simple as a hug, some verbal validation, or the opportunity to share one more concern.