Communication

In an idealized hierarchical org, there are a few major goals of communication that must be successfully satisfied if the team is going to succeed:

1. Deliver context down the chain of command
2. Gather sensory feedback from lower in the chain to the top
3. Transmit necessary information laterally

The degree to which the people inside the org choose good ways to achieve these goals, the organization has higher bandwidth and lower latency (for the same cost).

If the people inside the org continually to choose poor ways to achieve these goals (but still accomplish the goals), the bandwidth and latency of that org drastically underperforms its potential. Most of the capacity is lost to internal communication--which blocks everyone from doing much of anything else. This looks like meeting-bloat that then burns everyone out.

If the org fails to achieve these goals at all, the organization falls into chaos. Its resources are dissipated to no effect, i.e. bandwidth drops to zero. It may march on for a while if it has existing revenue streams that can be earned on autopilot. However, at the first change in environment, the zombie org will keel over.

One of the biggest mistakes people make in communication is talking at cross purposes. Here are some of the many reasons we communicate:

• Convey information
• Confirm receipt of information
• Alter the receiver's interpretation of pre-existing information
• Agree on a decision
• Assign a task
• Establish / build a relationship

Just knowing (and being explicit about) what we're trying to do often makes communication go much smoother.

Once we know the purpose of our communication, the next step is to choose the proper form of communication. Misjudgment here can lead to a lot of inefficiency in a team. Either necessary information doesn't get conveyed, or we lose a lot of time to unnecessary or repeated communication.

There are two major dimensions that define the form of any communication: arena and timeframe.

Arenas are about "who" is party to the communication:

1. 1:1
2. 1:N (Broadcast)
3. N:N (Group Discussion)

Timeframes about "how" the communication takes place:

1. Synchronous (Sync)
2. Asynchronous (Async)

By combining these two dimensions, you get 6 major forms:

Choosing the right form of communication is critical to achieving the purpose of the communication. To make the decision well, we have to understand the tradeoff between intimacy and efficiency.

Intimate communication is required for establishing relationships, however it tends to be really inefficient as a form of information transfer. Intimacy is comes from two-way communication executed with a high focus of attention.  

This also lends a robustness to the communication. The receiver can give feedback, ask questions, slow things down, speed things up, and even disagree along the way. When done well, the sender can be reasonably sure that the receiver was paying attention, followed the conversation, and understood what was being said. While there are never any guarantees of alignment--the sender has a good probability of at least knowing whether or not alignment exists.

The robustness allows intimate forms of communication to carry more complex information (nuance) about more sensitive and complex situations.

Efficient information transfer is generally far more one-sided and has one important strength: it can be parallelized. Just as discussed in Blackbox Systems Management, parallelization is the key to increasing the bandwidth of a system. In efficient forms of communication, one effort of sending reaches many recipients--which has the potential to greatly increase the total information transfer. This is absolutely essential in any organization.

Of course, with one sender and many recipients, the sender can be easily overwhelmed by replies. This limits the potential for two-communicating. So efficient communication lacks intimacy and robustness--which make it much harder to convey complex messages, talk about sensitive topics, or reconcile differences in viewpoints. It also leaves the sender with limited--if any--knowledge about the success or failure of the intended purpose.

At a high level, the different forms for communication represent tradeoffs something like this:

Most of the time, when people think of communication, they think of information. However, communication and relationships are connected on a far more primal level than communication and information. You can communicate with someone just fine with a touch that conveys no "real" information at all--but still advance a relationship.

In fact, a lot of verbal communication is basically devoid of information and just a vocal version of the touch. (A lot small talk is just "making friendly noises" to establish the initial relationship.)

Relationships don't have to be the intimate, personal things we usually think of. A relationship can be based on the positions both people hold in an organization, kinship, even just belonging to the same minority ethnic group in a foreign land. However, there must be some link that focuses each party's attention and makes the open to receiving new information.

Relationships are also transitive. The basic idea of an introduction is that A and C don't know each other. They can go through the initial time-consuming steps of building a relationship with no guarantee of success, or A can ask B for an introduction to C--leveraging B's relationship to C to start the conversation on a deeper level.

Finally, efficient broadcast (1:N) communication can create a relationship, of a kind. It's based on familiarity, not trust, and it's usually a weak, 1-way thing. The most obvious examples are is celebrity fame and business brands. The relationship works in the opposite direction of the broadcast. The broadcaster (the 1) transmits information out the many (the N). It's the many that feel the relationship back to the one, which is what makes them open to receiving information.

This is specifically important at Extra, as we're judging how much to invest in "brand" marketing vs "growth" marketing. The brand marketing budget establishes the relationship (and so goes first). The growth marketing then uses the relationship to transfer information and make the sale.

Transmission capacity is the ability for a particular communication to convey information--especially new/unexpected information. While it's quite easy to talk and talk and talk (take this blog as exhibit 1), people have limited capacity for the intake of information. When that information is unfamiliar, then people's capacity to absorb it falls WAY lower--and that's even with the clearest communication.

The transmission capacity of any particular attempt to communicate is highly variable based on the situation. Any number of factors can influence it. People may be tired or distracted. The material might not be very legible. The transmitter may have not put in the work to clearly articulate their thoughts.

However, there is one primary factor that determines transmission capacity above all else: the relationship between the parties involved.

People underestimate this. I'd go so far as to say that the relationship is actually the primary medium of communication. While it's possible to convey information without a relationship (think hieroglyphs), it almost never happens in normal life. We're far too busy to give our attention to totally unknown sources (unless they're saying things we're already familiar with, since that takes almost no effort to hear). In practice, all new information transfer first requires a relationship of some kind.

The nature of the relationship determines what types of information you can convey and how much content/nuance the message can have. And only then can the choice of form come into play. You're simply not allowed to talk to coworkers about some things--not because you work with them, but because you don't have the relationship to do so. The relationship (along with the chosen form of communication) also heavily influences the receiver's attention span--and that puts hard limits on transmission capacity. People simple tune out information from strangers.

The relationship comes first. The information transfer comes second.

And even then, there can be major Breakdowns in Communication.