There's a particular kind of communication problem I've encountered repeatedly.

Everyone has the information. The email was sent. The policy is online. The meeting happened. The instructions were provided. And yet people still don't know what to do.

The natural response is often: We need to communicate this again. Maybe another email. Another meeting. A better webpage. A reminder. More training.

Sometimes that's exactly what is needed.

But sometimes we're treating the symptom instead of diagnosing the problem. As noted in Psychology Today, the brain prefers a predictable negative pattern to an unpredictable future.

Case — Everyone Has the Information

Imagine a team introduces a new process. Leadership explains the change in a meeting. A document describes the new procedure. Managers receive instructions. Employees can find everything on the organization's website. A month later, people are still using the old process.

Some managers interpret the change differently. Employees ask questions the documentation supposedly answers. Work gets handed between teams incorrectly.

Leadership concludes: "People aren't reading the communications."

Maybe.

But before sending another message, I'd want to know something else. Where exactly is the communication failing?

Diagnosis — Follow the Knowledge

I would start by following the information through the system.

What does leadership believe people need to know? What was actually communicated What did managers understand? What did employees understand? What decision does someone have to make differently because of this information? What happens when they try? Where does the process break?

Those are different questions from: Did we send the email?

Communication isn't successful because information was transmitted.

Communication is successful when the right people can use that information to do what the situation requires. That gives us several possible diagnoses.

Maybe people genuinely don't know the new process. That's an awareness problem.

Maybe they've seen the information but don't understand what it means for their work. That's an interpretation problem.

Maybe they understand it but don't know what action to take. That's an application problem.

Maybe they know exactly what to do, but another department hasn't changed its process. That's a coordination problem.

Maybe everyone understands the change, but the old behaviour is still easier, faster, or rewarded by the organization. That's probably not a communication problem at all.

And those diagnoses require very different interventions.

Decision — Don't Communicate Until You Know What's Broken

If the problem is awareness, increase visibility.

If the problem is interpretation, improve explanation.

If the problem is application, create practice.

If the problem is coordination, clarify responsibilities and handoffs.

If the system rewards the wrong behaviour, redesign the system.

The intervention follows the diagnosis. That's the part of communication work that interests me most.

Instead of: How do we communicate more?

The question is:

Where is important knowledge failing to become clear communication and effective action?

Once we know where the failure occurs, we can decide what should happen next.

Reflection

Think about a situation where you've found yourself saying:

"But everyone already knows this."

At work. At home. In a classroom.

In an organization. In a community.

Then ask:

If everyone has the information and nothing is changing, what might actually be failing?

Resist the urge to solve it right away. Don't solve it yet.

Diagnose it.

Tool — The Communication Failure Test

The next time something "isn't being communicated," ask five questions:

1. Awareness: Do the right people know?

2. Interpretation: Do they understand what it means?

3. Application: Do they know what to do?

4. Coordination: Can everyone involved actually do their part?

5. Environment: Does the surrounding system support the desired action?

Before creating another communication, identify which question produces the weakest answer.

That's where I'd investigate first.

In the next email, we'll take the next step.

Once you've diagnosed what's actually happening:

How do you decide what should happen next?

Until next time,

Greg K. Campbell