When communication isn’t the answer (and why that matters)
Often, when something isn’t working in a business, or people are frustrated, engagement is slipping, or there’s a bit of noise building in the background, the first answer people run to is: let’s communicate more.
But honestly, not every problem is a communication problem, and even moreso, not every problem can be solved with more communication.
Where things start to go wrong
Communication often gets pulled in at the end of a process, after decisions have already been made. Sometimes those decisions are solid, but other times… not so much. Either way, the expectation lands in the same place: “can you help us get people on board?”
Which is where things can start to unravel. If people are already frustrated, confused, or feel like something’s being done to them rather than with them, no amount of carefully crafted messaging is going to shift that.
The illusion of “better messaging”
Take something like return-to-office mandates: it’s been a big one over the past year or so. Leaders make the call, people react, and then comms gets asked to help smooth things over or make people agree.
The ideas will come quickly, with things like a video featuring employees who enjoy being back in the office, or an article about the benefits of in-person collaboration. Perhaps a message from leadership reinforcing the why.
On the surface, none of these are inherently bad ideas, but when they’re used to counteract genuine frustration? Definitely not helpful.
Especially when people don’t agree with a decision, or feel it’s unfair, content like this only highlights the disconnect between the decision-makers and the impacted.
The role of comms isn’t to fix it
Communication isn’t a function built on rescuing decisions that haven't landed well. It’s not there to “spin” something into acceptance, and it’s definitely not there to convince people that what they’re feeling isn’t valid.
Instead, the role of communication is to bring clarity, context, and connection when the foundations are right.
Knowing when to step back (and speak up)
Good communicators don’t just jump into execution mode, because this is where trouble looms. They will pause, look at what’s really going on underneath the request, and sometimes say:
“I don’t think communication is the solution here.”
It may not be an immediate shut down of an idea, but it might sound like:
“What are we trying to change here, the understanding, or the behaviour?”
“How do we think this will land with the people impacted?”
“Is there something we need to address before we communicate anything?”
Content isn’t what’s needed generally, it’s a different approach.
A different way to think about it
Instead of asking, “How do we communicate this?”, try asking: “what actually needs to happen here?” Sometimes the answer is better communication, sure, but often, it’s:
More listening
A tweak to the decision itself
Clearer rationale backed by real data
Or simply acknowledging that people are unhappy and then figuring out why
Communication can support all of that, but it can’t replace it.
The part no one really talks about
There’s a reason this gets tricky, because no one likes having to push back, especially with senior stakeholders. There’s hierarchy, pressure, timelines.
It’s much easier to just do the work, but then this comes at a cost. It begins to chip away at your own credibility, as a function and an individual. When communication becomes a band-aid, people notice, and trust will start to slip.
It’s not necessarily a bad thing to be known as a ‘gatekeeper’ if you’re gatekeeping comms as a critical function.
