Brought to you by Wellspoken:
The words between the words matter more than most professionals realize. Every “um,” “uh,” “like,” and “you know” scattered through a presentation or pitch meeting carries a cost. That cost falls on the speaker’s perceived competence, authority, and expertise. And for women in business, who already face steeper scrutiny in professional settings, the cost is significantly higher.
Filler words are one of the most common and most overlooked obstacles to effective professional communication. The good news: they respond well to targeted, research-backed strategies. The even better news: meaningful progress does not require months of coaching or thousands of dollars. It requires understanding the problem, understanding the stakes, and putting in focused practice.
How Common Are Filler Words, Really?
Research on spontaneous speech patterns shows that the average speaker produces roughly six filler words per 100 words of unscripted talk. For a 10-minute presentation containing around 1,500 words, that translates to about 90 fillers.
Ninety moments where the audience’s attention drifts, where credibility takes a small but cumulative hit.
Most speakers dramatically underestimate their own filler word frequency. Recorded playback almost always reveals more “ums” and “uhs” than the speaker remembers producing. This gap between perception and reality is one reason the problem persists. People who don’t know the extent of a habit rarely take steps to fix it.
The issue isn’t that filler words are unnatural. They’re a normal feature of human speech. The issue is what happens in a listener’s brain when they hear them in a professional context.
What Filler Words Actually Do to Perceived Competence
A study conducted at California Polytechnic State University measured how filler words affect audience perceptions of speaker competence. Participants rated speakers on a 7-point competence scale. Speakers who used filler words scored an average of 3.99. Speakers delivering the same content without fillers scored 5.93.
That is a gap of nearly two full points on a seven-point scale. Not for different content. Not for better arguments or stronger data. The only variable was the presence or absence of filler words.
This finding is consistent with broader research on speech fluency and credibility. When a speaker hesitates, stumbles, or fills gaps with verbal placeholders, listeners unconsciously downgrade their assessment of that person’s preparation, knowledge, and confidence. The speaker may be brilliant. The speaker may have spent days preparing. The audience’s brain still registers “um” as a signal of uncertainty.
For professionals who depend on persuasion, leadership presence, or stakeholder buy-in, this is not a minor issue. It’s a direct drag on career outcomes.
The Gender Penalty: Why This Problem Hits Women Harder
Every professional who uses filler words pays a credibility tax. But the research makes clear that women pay a higher rate.
A George Washington University study found that men interrupt women 33% more frequently than they interrupt other men. When women already face more interruptions, every second of speaking time becomes more valuable. Filling those hard-won seconds with “um” and “like” is a double penalty.
The pattern holds even at the highest levels of professional achievement. Research on oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court found that female justices received 32% of all interruptions while representing only 24% of the bench at the time of the study. If the most powerful women in the American legal system can’t speak without disproportionate interruption, the problem is clearly structural, not personal.
The scrutiny goes beyond interruptions. A study of economics seminars found that women presenting research received 12% more questions than men presenting the same material. The additional questions weren’t driven by greater interest. Researchers characterized them as more hostile and more challenging in nature. Women were being asked to defend identical work more aggressively than their male peers.
There is also a perception gap that operates independently of actual behavior. Research on conversational dynamics has found that when men and women contribute an equal number of words to a discussion, observers consistently judge the women as having talked more. Women start from a deficit of perceived speaking “allowance” before they open their mouths.
McKinsey’s Women in the Workplace research has documented for years that women face greater scrutiny on competence at every level of organizational hierarchy. The filler word penalty sits on top of these existing biases. A man who says “um” 12 times in a board presentation may be judged as slightly underprepared. A woman who does the same may be judged as not ready for the room.
None of this means women should accept the burden of fixing a biased system alone. But it does mean that reducing filler words can be an unusually high-return investment for women in business. Addressing a controllable variable (speech fluency) partially offsets an uncontrollable one (systemic bias). Both deserve attention. One of them can be changed starting this week.
5 Research-Backed Strategies to Reduce Filler Words
The following strategies are drawn from speech science, cognitive psychology, and communication research. They are listed roughly in order of how quickly they produce results.
1. Record, Review, and Identify Patterns
Most filler word habits follow patterns that the speaker is completely unaware of. Some people say “um” at the beginning of every new thought. Others insert “like” during transitions between ideas. Still others cluster fillers when discussing topics they feel less confident about.
Recording a practice presentation or even a regular work call (with permission) and reviewing it with attention to filler placement is the single fastest way to understand a personal filler pattern. The goal is not to count every filler. The goal is to identify when and where they tend to appear. Those specific moments become the focus of targeted practice.
2. Replace Fillers with Silence
This strategy sounds simple. In practice, it requires deliberate effort because silence feels uncomfortable for most speakers. The instinct to fill every gap with sound is deeply ingrained.
But research on audience perception shows that brief pauses (one to three seconds) actually increase perceived confidence and authority. Listeners interpret silence as composure. They interpret “um” as hesitation. The content is identical. The impression is different.
Start by practicing this technique in low-stakes situations. Casual conversations, voicemails, even talking through a grocery list out loud. The goal is to build comfort with the sensation of silence so that pausing in a high-stakes meeting becomes a trained reflex, not a terrifying void.
3. Prepare First and Last Sentences Word-for-Word
Research on speech anxiety consistently shows that filler words spike during the opening and closing moments of any presentation. The beginning carries the most nervousness. The end carries the most pressure to land a strong conclusion. The middle, when the speaker has settled into a rhythm, tends to be more fluent.
Memorizing the first two sentences of a presentation (not the whole thing, just the opening) gives the speaker a clean, confident start. Preparing the final sentence ensures a strong close. These bookends create an impression of polish that colors the audience’s perception of everything in between.
4. Use Structured Practice with Real-Time Feedback
A meta-analysis examining 134 studies on skill acquisition found that deliberate practice, defined as structured repetition with specific feedback, is the most effective method for changing habitual behaviors. This applies directly to filler word reduction.
The key distinction is between general practice (“give presentations more often”) and deliberate practice (“record a 3-minute talk, review it for fillers, re-record it with targeted pauses in those exact spots, compare the two versions”). General practice reinforces whatever habits already exist. Deliberate practice replaces them.
The same body of research found that 76% of participants reached coaching-level proficiency after approximately two hours of structured practice. That isn’t two hours per day or 2 hours per week. It’s a total of two hours invested in focused, feedback-driven repetition.
AI-powered speech coaching tools have made this type of practice more accessible. Apps like Wellspoken provide real-time feedback on filler word usage during practice sessions, removing the need to manually review recordings. These tools allow professionals to run through a presentation multiple times in a single sitting and track measurable improvement between each attempt.
5. Build a Pre-Meeting Vocal Warm-Up Routine
Athletes warm up before competition. Musicians warm up before performance. Speakers rarely warm up before meetings, and the result is predictable – the first few minutes of a presentation are typically the least fluent.
A vocal warm-up doesn’t need to be elaborate. Spending 60 to 90 seconds before a meeting speaking out loud (summarizing key points, reading a few sentences from notes, or simply talking through the agenda) activates the vocal and cognitive systems involved in fluent speech. It shifts the brain from “thinking mode” to “speaking mode” before the stakes are real.
This technique is particularly effective when combined with prepared opening sentences (Strategy 3). Walk into the meeting with a warm voice and a memorized first line, and the filler-heavy opening minutes become some of the strongest.
Common Questions About Filler Words and Professional Communication
Are filler words ever acceptable in professional settings?
In casual conversation, occasional filler words are natural and expected. Research suggests they can even help listeners process complex information by signaling that a detailed thought is coming. The problem arises in formal or high-stakes settings where credibility is being actively evaluated: presentations, interviews, pitches, and leadership meetings. In those contexts, reducing fillers produces measurable improvements in how the speaker is perceived.
How long does it take to see real improvement?
The research on deliberate practice suggests that most people can achieve noticeable reduction in filler word usage within 2 to 4 hours of focused, feedback-driven practice spread over one to two weeks. Complete elimination is neither realistic nor necessary. The goal is reduction to the point where fillers no longer distract from the message.
Does reducing filler words actually affect career outcomes?
Directly measuring the career impact of any single communication variable is difficult. But the Cal Poly study’s finding of a nearly 2-point competence gap on a 7-point scale is substantial. Combined with research showing that women already face heightened scrutiny on perceived competence (McKinsey’s Women in the Workplace data), even a moderate improvement in speech fluency can change how a professional is evaluated in the moments that matter most: performance reviews, promotion discussions, and client-facing presentations.
Should women focus on fixing their speech, or should workplaces fix their biases?
Both. These are not competing priorities. Structural bias requires organizational change: equitable promotion practices, interruption-aware meeting facilitation, bias training that actually produces behavioral shifts. At the same time, individual professionals benefit from developing the strongest possible communication skills within the current reality. Working on speech fluency isn’t an endorsement of the biased systems that make it necessary. It’s a practical response to conditions as they exist right now.
The Bottom Line
Filler words are a solvable problem. Not overnight, and not perfectly, but meaningfully and measurably. The research is clear that they carry real costs in professional settings, and equally clear that those costs fall disproportionately on women.
For women in business who want to be heard, promoted, and taken seriously on the strength of their ideas, reducing filler words is one of the highest-return investments available. It doesn’t require a coach. It doesn’t require a personality change. It requires about two hours of the right kind of practice, a willingness to hear the “ums” clearly, and the decision to replace them with something more powerful: silence, confidence, and the next sentence.
