We have a lot of change happening inside the company right now.
Some of it involves structure. Some of it involves people. Some of it involves how we operate. Each change makes sense on its own, but when several changes happen at the same time, the experience can feel very different to the staff than it does to me.
That became clear in a recent employee survey.
We received some negative feedback not only about the quantity of change happening, but even more about how those changes were being communicated. In some cases, people did not understand why a decision had been made. In others, they did not know a change was happening at all.
My first reaction was that we had communicated these things. In fact, I had communicated them many times.
I hold weekly one-on-one meetings with my direct reports. We hold a weekly talent meeting. Some of our leaders participate in a weekly change control board, and everyone attends the once-a-week company huddle. We also have a monthly supervisors’ meeting.
I had communicated these changes multiple times, with multiple groups, at multiple levels of the company.
But that did not mean everyone had received the message.
I was treating communication with leaders as if it were communication with the company. I assumed information would move through the organization from one level to the next. Sometimes it did. Sometimes it did not. Even when it reached everyone, it did not always arrive with the same context or explanation originally provided.
A leader may not realize they are responsible for passing something along. They may understand the decision but miss an important detail. Other times the decision doesn’t impact them, and they don’t convey it to their direct reports. Or they may explain it differently than I would. By the time a message moves through several layers, the staff may hear a partial version of the decision, or a different version, without understanding the thinking behind it.
We currently have 65 people in the company, and miscommunication creates uncertainty quickly.
When employees do not know what is changing, why it is changing, or how it affects them, they fill in the gaps themselves. And when there are unknowns, they’re typically filled in with negative thoughts. As in, “Am I about to get fired?” Really, this is the type of concern I hear from others when they’ve only heard about a change through the rumor mill. The absence of information creates different versions of reality throughout the company.
I learned a version of this lesson years ago when I was a Navy contractor working for a retired United States Navy commander.
He conveyed a story about how the Navy had conducted multiple efficiency studies over the years. The goal was to determine which part of that huge organization—ships, planes, submarines, munitions, training, logistics, etc.—caused the most problems.
Each study reached essentially the same conclusion: communication was the single biggest issue contributing to inefficiency.
He had a saying that has stuck with me for many years, and one that I repeat often: “Communication is always the problem.” I've seen the truth of this statement play out more times than I care to admit.
Most organizational problems are not caused by bad people or bad intentions. Usually, people have the skills to do the work and genuinely want the company to succeed. The problem is that we are human. We make assumptions. We leave out context. We hear something different from what another person intended to say, and often we repeat it incorrectly. Communication breaks down, and execution breaks down behind it.
What I have learned more recently is that communication is not only the problem. It is always the solution. That is why I am changing how I communicate inside the company.
I no longer depend on a message being passed through layers of management and hope it arrives, and arrives intact. If we are planning something that will affect others in the company, my default now is to communicate the change directly to everyone. That may be delivered as a message in Slack, a video, or a company-wide video meeting. Even when I explain something live, I also put it in writing so people can revisit it later.
That does not mean leaders should stop communicating with their leadership team. Just the opposite, in fact. First, communicate the message to your leaders. Then inform them that you’ll be conveying the message directly to the staff. Prepare them to answer questions from their reports. By double communicating, your managers are ready to help their teams understand what it means for them.
You may be thinking, “Is all this communication really necessary?” It's exhausting having to convey your message over and over again to different people. But the reality is that if you don't, you will have a hard time implementing your vision.
Change is inevitable, especially in a company that is growing, and it creates operational strain. That strain cannot always be eliminated, but it can be controlled. You may need to slow down more than you want. You may need to explain more than you want to. You will likely feel frustrated that it’s not easier to quickly change your company as easily as you once could.
People can work through a surprising amount of change when they understand what is happening and why. What creates chaos is not always the change itself. It is the uncertainty surrounding it.
As a company grows, communication cannot remain an informal byproduct of leadership meetings. It has to become part of the operating structure. The message matters. The timing matters. The context matters. Most of all, the responsibility for making sure people understand cannot be assumed away.
Communication is always the problem. And it’s always the solution.
How are you communicating major changes inside your company, and where do you think the message is getting lost? Reply directly to [email protected] and tell me.
~ Erik
About
Erik J. Olson is the Founder and CEO of Proxa, where he builds and operates multiple marketing agencies focused on predictable, system-driven growth. He has scaled agencies across multiple markets by replacing fragmented execution with structured systems that drive consistent revenue. Erik is the author of Million Dollar Journey and writes The Business of Agency newsletter. He is building Proxa into a $100M platform with a planned private equity exit.