Here’s a phrase heard in just about every organization: “Our communication needs to improve.”   Although this phrase rings with truth, it’s about as useful as standing in the rain saying, “Our clothes are getting wet.”  General statements of the obvious don’t solve problems.

My gripe with the instruction to “improve communication” is that it’s too broad. It’s vague. It leaves wide open the options of what should be done. And, because this directive outlines no detailed particulars, “communication” will remain fuzzy—despite all the calls to improve it.

(Illustrating the fact that ‘communication’ is a very broad term, Amazon.com shows more than 350,000 books on the topic!)

Solutions are found in the specifics. Which communication method should be used? How often? For what reason? What guidelines or parameters will be established?

When everyone is made aware of and adheres to agreed-upon protocols, “communication,” as it were, will improve.

Essentially, don’t say “we need to improve communication.” Be very specific.  Something like, “We need to start using __________ twice a day / every morning / once a week / every month / etc. so that ___________ gets addressed, and ___________ will be our guidelines.”

Here are some specific tools with a few pros and cons for each: 

Email

Pros: Fast and free (love that). It also creates a written record of conversation. It allows for rapid responses and multiple participants. Can be used among remote team members.
Cons: Inbox overload—too many email messages dilute their impact. Cyberspace is not as reliable as many of us think (email gets lost, or ‘stuck’ somewhere).  Intentions can be easily misinterpreted (words are only 7% of communication – voice tone and facial expression are missing).

Intranet and/or Internal Blogs

Pros: Much the same as Email—fast, free, a written record, and rapid response capability. Big benefit: reduction of email. Centralized and web-based, accessible anywhere the Net is available, regardless of email availability. Additionally, RSS feeds can notify team members whenever additions are made.
Cons: May require ramp-up training.

Teleconferencing

Pros: Voice tone adds much understanding. Allows for remote participation. Get rapid decisions.
Cons: No body language possible. Technology can be spotty—especially if using mobile phones. Coordinating meeting times is necessary.

Face-to-Face Meetings

Pros: Face-to-face greatly improves transfer of knowledge/understanding/intentions (body language and voice tone are right there). Rapid decisions with instant team feedback.
Cons: Team members must be in one place. Coordinating meeting times can be difficult. Strong personalities may rule by visual intimidation.

Video Conferencing

Pros: Same as face-to-face but with the added benefit of engaging remote team members.
Cons: Coordinating times can be difficult, and technology may not be reliable. Requires adjusting to new technology – some ramp-up training may be required.

Personally, I’ve become an advocate of internal (private) blogs for improving communications. The benefits for teams with Internet access are phenomenal. But more on that in another post.

Share This

Filed in Technology, Business, Opinion, Training, Management, Leadership, Teambuilding, Internet, Meetings