Skip to main content

1.2 trillion reasons to improve your workplace communication

People vector created by studiogstock

If you want to end up in a chasm, a good solution is to give body and soul to external communication, taking internal communication for granted.

Many managers delight in designing intricate organization charts, paying enormous attention to roles, hierarchies and job titles.

However, too many are happy to spare themselves the Sisyphus fatigue to design information flows in a conscious, focused and orderly way.

This neglect comes at a frightening price.

Some staggering figures, just to be clear

Let's start with the research by Grammarly and The Harris Poll, eloquently titled "The State of Business Communication" - but a more appropriate name would be "The State of Internal Communication" or "The State of Workplace Communication".

The research involved 251 business leaders and 1001 knowledge workers in the United States.

Some significant data:
  • Poor communication costs US businesses $ 1.2 trillions every year 
  • Poor communication costs an average of $ 12,506 per employee every year 
  • Knowledge workers dedicate an average of 19.93 hours per week to written communication: exactly half of their work time 
  • Business leaders believe poor communication burns an average of 7.47 hours per week (one workday per week, one fifth of the entire work time)
The problem of a poor workplace communication is particularly pressing for that department that thrives on communication more than any other: marketing!

Ironically, 93% of business leaders say effective communication is the backbone of their business - but then, if we all agree, where is the problem?

Unfortunately, there is the proverbial ocean between declarations of intent and concrete commitments.

By the way, an odd but significant fact concerns the answer to the fateful question: how much time do teams spend collaborating?

Employees say 49%, business leaders say 29%: perhaps the latter underestimate the importance of collaboration and the amount of effort and time it requires.

What problems does poor communication produce in the workplace?

We are spoiled for choice: lower productivity; higher costs; missed or prolonged deadlines; less prospects for new sales; bad reputation inside and outside; failure to share corporate values and culture; poor emotional involvement of employees; morale under your feet...

Obviously, you must frame the research in its geographical and economic context and remember that it is still a sample survey.

According to another research a few years ago, knowledge workers spent an average of 2.5 hours a day searching for information and 25% of them faced stress and health issues when they had to manage an excessive volume of information.

It goes without saying that often this search for information becomes winding because the information is managed in a disordered way, placed in separate and non-communicating silos, stored without a linear logic, not updated, wrong, even hidden in bad faith...

Does working remotely mean teams collaborate less?

No, absolutely not: for the simple reason that teams need to collaborate. If they can't do it live, they'll do it remotely.

It's brutally simple but many employers don't grasp it, probably because they are overwhelmed by their anxiety for control or their distrust of their own co-workers.

Our bosses should change their perspective: from a short-term stifling surveillance to a long-term strategy vision, focused on the goals to be achieved rather than the schedules to be met.

Yes, it’s easier said than done: but this is why strategists exist.

So, can mental (and documentary) confusion hurt?

Sure, and generally it's an immense damage.

When I talked about it in some previous workplaces, they almost laughed in my face: the most superficial and prosaic bosses only see the final products (apps, websites, videos, business presentations...) because the final products bring money.

This approach is both shortsighted and counterproductive.

Final products exist thanks to the process behind them: this process can take place in a planned or improvised way, with or without a strategy and a vision, but it happens nonetheless.

Leaving it to chance or chaos means devouring time, energy and resources: roles are confused, people do not know exactly what to do, feedback and criteria on how to evaluate their contribution are lacking, crucial information is dispersed in thousands of documents without a common logic.

And the team often ends up not having an identity, because not even goals, values and milestones are shared within the company.

They live day to day, without any involvement or sense of belonging.

So what: how to improve communication in the workplace?

A few lines are not enough to address the limitless range of solutions to be evaluated.

However, here are some tips to be acted right away:
  • Establish consistent guidelines for business presentations 
  • Establish consistent guidelines for a centralized repository with all team resources 
  • Use a standard format to sum up the highlights of each project 
  • Cut all the useless and the redundant (and do it immediately, nipping the chaotic accumulation of unstructured information in the bud) 
  • Severely punish the many sloppy and messy colleagues
Simple, trivial things... that often make a difference.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Brands need a strong identity, not to cling to someone else's. The Balocco and Ferragni affair

The fact : the Italian Competition Authority fined the companies of the famous influencer Chiara Ferragni , along with the confectionery company Balocco , with a total penalty of €1,075,000 for unfair commercial practices related to the Pink Christmas pandoro. The fine for Balocco is €420,000. The Antitrust claims that the companies led consumers to believe that by purchasing the pandoro, they were contributing to a donation to the Regina Margherita Hospital in Turin , when in reality, the €50,000 donation had already been made by Balocco months earlier. Companies associated with Chiara Ferragni collected over one million euros from the initiative. How did they get to this point? First mistake: confusion  What was the goal of the marketing campaign ?  To improve the company's ethical reputation or to reach the audience that adores Chiara Ferragni?  They are two different levels: the first is moral, the second is hedonistic.  Why muddy the waters? If the goal was to improve the co

The Kit Kat & Twix case. Does kindness really pay off for brands?

  Sometimes, when we think about marketing, an aggressive and unforgiving environment comes to our mind. After all, market is competition , right? However, many people value integrity and fair play . And they wish to reward brands that embrace these values. Is flattery more beneficial to the giver or the recipient? In 2021, in a series of 12 experiments led by Duke University, two groups of consumers were shown two fake tweets (when we could still call them tweets...) by Kit Kat (snacks that I suppose needs no introduction): First tweet - Kit Kat praises Twix : @twix, Competitor or not, congrats on your 54 years in business! Even we can admit - Twix are delicious Second tweet - Kit Kat praises itself :  Start your day off with a tasty treat! 11 days later, the percentage of those who bought a Kit Kat : was 31.95% among those who had seen the first tweet - the competitor's praise was 23.77% among those who had seen the second tweet - the trivial self-praise And the delicious Twix

Too much jam can be confusing: the Paradox of Choice

December : a time of carefree afternoons spent shopping with your loved ones.  As you stroll through the crowded, festive streets illuminated with a thousand colors, your attention as food enthusiasts is caught by two stands on either side of the street.  Both sell artisanal jams: on one counter there are 24 variants; on the other counter there are only 6 variants.  Which of the two stands is more likely to pique your interest?  Which of the two stands is more likely to turn you into their customers?  The answers to these two questions may not coincide .  Too much choice leads to no choice  In 2000, psychologists Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper conducted an experiment to check the correlation between the number of alternatives available and the customer conversion rate .  The experiment didn't take place in Christmas markets but in Menlo Park, California, in an upscale supermarket, where potential customers were lured with a $1 discount voucher.  The results seem counterintuitive: