Advice

Why Your Company's Communication is Failing: A 15-Year Veteran's Take on What Really Goes Wrong

My phone buzzed at 11:47 PM last Thursday. Another "urgent" email from head office about a project that wasn't actually urgent, sent to seventeen people who didn't need to know, formatted like a ransom note, and asking for feedback "ASAP" on something that should've been decided three meetings ago.

This is why your company's communication is broken. And after fifteen years of watching brilliant businesses shoot themselves in the foot with terrible communication practices, I'm convinced most organisations would rather complicate a simple message than risk someone actually understanding what they're trying to say.

The truth is, communication failure isn't just about bad emails or unclear meetings. It's about ego, fear, and the bizarre corporate belief that complexity equals importance.

The Email Apocalypse (And Why We're All Guilty)

Let's start with the elephant in every inbox: email overload. The average office worker receives 121 emails per day. That's roughly one every four minutes during work hours. But here's what nobody talks about – 67% of those emails shouldn't have been sent in the first place.

I've watched teams spend forty-five minutes in meetings discussing what should've been a two-line text message. Meanwhile, critical project updates get buried in group emails with subject lines like "FW: RE: FW: Quick Question (URGENT!!!)".

Last month, I worked with a Melbourne manufacturing firm where the operations manager sent daily "communication improvement" emails. To forty-three people. About communication improvement. The irony was completely lost on him.

The real problem isn't that we're sending too many emails – it's that we're using email as a dumping ground for every half-formed thought, passive-aggressive comment, and abdication of responsibility that crosses our minds.

The Meeting Madness That's Killing Productivity

Here's an unpopular opinion: most meetings are just elaborate procrastination disguised as productivity.

We schedule meetings to discuss scheduling meetings. We invite twelve people to make decisions that three people should handle. We spend twenty minutes on introductions for a thirty-minute session. And then we schedule follow-up meetings to discuss what we should've decided in the original meeting.

I once sat through a ninety-minute "communication strategy session" where nobody could agree on what "communication" meant. True story. Three different departments, each with their own definition, arguing about semantics while actual communication problems went unsolved.

But here's what really gets me fired up: the way we handle remote and hybrid meetings. Half the attendees are eating lunch with their cameras off, quarter are clearly checking emails, and the rest are wondering why they couldn't just read the slides later.

Companies like Atlassian have figured this out. They've embraced asynchronous communication for decision-making and only use live meetings for genuine collaboration. Effective communication training programs focus on this distinction, but most organisations are still stuck in 2019.

The Hierarchy Problem Nobody Wants to Discuss

Middle management is where good communication goes to die.

Not because middle managers are incompetent – most are overwhelmed, undertrained, and caught between unrealistic expectations from above and legitimate concerns from below. They're communication bottlenecks, not because they want to be, but because the system demands it.

Senior leadership makes decisions based on quarterly reports and board presentations. Front-line staff deal with daily operational realities. Middle management gets to translate between these completely different languages while pretending everything makes perfect sense.

I've seen department heads rewrite clear, simple instructions into corporate jargon just to make them sound "more professional." A directive like "answer customer calls within three rings" becomes "implement enhanced customer engagement responsiveness protocols to optimise client satisfaction metrics."

Why? Because somewhere along the way, we decided that complicated language equals competence.

The Technology Trap (And Why More Tools Make Things Worse)

Every organisation I work with has the same complaint: "We need better communication tools." So they buy another platform. Slack for instant messaging. Teams for collaboration. Zoom for meetings. Asana for project management. Monday.com for task tracking.

Congratulations, you now have six different places where important information disappears forever.

The problem isn't the tools – it's that we keep adding technology solutions to human problems. No app will fix the fact that your sales team doesn't trust your marketing team. No platform will solve the issue that your CEO announces major changes without consulting anyone who actually does the work.

JB Hi-Fi figured this out years ago. They keep their communication simple, direct, and human-focused. Store managers have clear authority to make customer-focused decisions without checking with head office every time someone wants to return a toaster.

But most companies would rather implement another "communication solution" than address the cultural issues that make communication difficult in the first place.

The Cultural Issues We Pretend Don't Exist

Here's something that makes business consultants uncomfortable: communication problems are usually relationship problems in disguise.

That project that's "stuck in review"? It's because two department heads can't stand each other and neither wants to compromise. The "unclear expectations" everyone complains about? They're perfectly clear to the people who matter, just not to the people doing the work.

Australian workplace culture has this peculiar combination of egalitarianism and hierarchy that makes honest communication almost impossible. We want to be "mateship-focused" while maintaining clear corporate structures. We value straight talk but punish people who actually speak directly about problems.

I've worked with mining companies where safety communications are crystal clear – because lives depend on it – but project updates are deliberately vague because nobody wants to admit they're three weeks behind schedule.

What Actually Works (And Why You Won't Do It)

After fifteen years of fixing communication problems, I can tell you exactly what works. You won't like it.

First, ruthlessly eliminate unnecessary communication. If it doesn't require action, feedback, or decision-making, don't send it. That weekly update email that nobody reads? Kill it. The monthly all-hands meeting where nothing gets decided? Cancel it.

Second, assign communication ownership. Every message, every meeting, every project update should have one person responsible for making sure the right information reaches the right people at the right time. Not a committee. Not a "collaborative approach." One person.

Third, measure communication effectiveness the same way you measure sales or production. How long does it take decisions to reach implementation? How often do projects get delayed because of "miscommunication"? How many emails does it take to resolve a simple issue?

Most organisations track everything except the thing that makes everything else possible.

The Training Investment Nobody Wants to Make

Here's my biggest frustration: companies will spend thousands on productivity software but nothing on communication skills training for their managers.

Your operations manager who can optimise workflows and manage budgets might have zero training in how to run effective meetings or deliver clear feedback. Your project coordinators who can juggle multiple deadlines simultaneously might never have learned how to write emails that actually get read.

We assume communication skills are innate or that people will figure them out through trial and error. Then we wonder why our organisations are full of miscommunication, missed deadlines, and frustrated employees.

The Real Solution (That Requires Actual Leadership)

Fixing communication isn't about better tools or training programs. It's about creating environments where clear, honest communication is rewarded instead of punished.

That means leaders who model direct communication instead of corporate speak. It means consequences for people who waste others' time with unclear messages or pointless meetings. It means promoting people who can translate complex ideas into actionable steps, not just those who sound impressive in presentations.

Most importantly, it means accepting that good communication is uncomfortable. It requires saying things people don't want to hear, making decisions that someone will disagree with, and taking responsibility when things go wrong.

The companies that get this right – like Bunnings with their clear customer service communication or Australia Post with their transparent delivery updates during COVID – don't have better technology or smarter people. They have cultures where communication serves the work, not the other way around.

Your company's communication is failing because you're treating symptoms instead of causes. You're adding complexity instead of removing barriers. You're investing in tools instead of skills.

And until that changes, you'll keep having the same problems with shinier platforms.

But hey, at least your next "communication improvement initiative" will have a really professional-looking presentation.