Leaders may be seen by their followers as miscalibrating the quantity of their communication — sharing too much or too little. We propose that leaders are more likely to be seen as under-communicating than over-communicating, even though under-communication is more heavily penalized. In Study 1a, we examine 2,717 qualitative comments from archived leadership assessments and find that leaders are nearly ten times as likely to be criticized for under-communicating than over-communicating. In Study 1b, we obtain further evidence of this bias using a representative sample of U.S. adults. In Study 2, we manipulate communication (mis)calibration, showing that leaders who under-communicate are viewed as less qualified for a leadership role because they are viewed as less empathic. In Study 3, we use separate measures of employee perceptions of their manager’s communication as well as their preferences. When there is a lack of congruence between perceived and preferred communication, employees judge their leaders as lacking empathy and, in turn, leadership ability.