I you think if they need a paper reminder about the meaning of effective communications then I'd have to disagree. A little reminder from you would have sufficed.

I'd suggest that what they need is a good consultant to get in and look at what is happening and not happening in terms of communications.

In reply to David Perry:

I agree David. An effective communicator, rather than another dusty leaflet to weigh down the shelf.

What is the problem you are trying to solve? Can you give us a little steer about what has made you conclude the issue is (in)effective comms - which is pretty commonplace!

In reply to Steve Bridger:

Steve - a general slippage in good communications, both internally and with clients, I think not helped by the way we have been working in recent months; the plan was for everyone to get together in early December and this would have been discussed, however, Omicron put that on the back burner - this may be something that waits until we are all 'in the room' again in March; I was planning on sharing a document prior to this. Whilst I agree that the face-to-face approach is most effective, I have a number of managers who have varying views on this approach, with some wanting to get something into mail boxes sooner rather than later - thank you

In reply to Barnes Restell:

Good communications isn't something, in my opinion, that can be mandated. It's cultural, first, and then arises from a mix of training, experience and example. It's also kind of... not an HR thing?

And I don't mean that we don't communicate effectively (although, sometimes...) but that communications (a.k.a. marketing, internal and external) is a separate professional discipline. I tend to get a bit righteous about HR being bundled under Finance, so I can't imagine communications professionals would be that pleased to see HR setting themselves up as communications experts.

I think it's important to recognise that communication, in organisational terms, is a game of two halves, played very much in the specific operational and business-cultural context of each organisation.

First there have to be adequate and effective lines and facilities of communication "structure", provision of which, as Roby suggests, can be considered as specialist area; not only regarding the technologies and methodologies involved, but also in relation to the "who talks to whom" ...and when, how, where, etc. These are indeed aspects that can be discussed in general terms at strategic group meetings, that including or resulting in some form of "draft brief" for specialist and more detailed consideration, but these deliberations, and the almost inevitably uniquely tailored corporate solutions leading from them, are then dependent upon the second aspect of communication: The willingness (or ability) of individuals to utilise the systems in place at any given moment in time.

This latter seeming to be, from your outline, the principle problem your client now faces.

The good news is that it is a problem potentially easily solved; the bad news, however, is that its resolution is dependent, not on generalised meetings and discussions, much less outsider or technical intervention, but on the cascade of line managers, from the CEO downwards, themselves communicating with their reports to find out why or how the technical and organisational systems in place are not being used, and whether that is a "technological" problem (like the security of someone's wi-fi when WFH) or maybe their growing feeling of isolation if "self isolating", otherwise WFH, avoiding face-to-face group meetings etc.... or is it because they are being bullied, harassed, having contributions to meetings or projects dismissed or ridiculed, concerned regarding their accent or speech impediment, .....or perhaps the opposite: Overconfidence or arrogance telling them they do not need permissions or discussions with others to do their job impeccably? ....or is it for any of several thousand other reasons applicable both during the current crisis (we are now told is over) or at any other time?

....and none of those aspects can be effectively added to an agenda, to be resolved by a show of hands, a cross-referral to an "expert" or consultant, or a 300 page policy manual. All depend upon "people knowing their people" and being able to communicate with them both professionally and personally to find out why they are not talking, or phoning, or texting, or whatever, and whether the problem is with the electronic widget on their desk, or the sick child they are worried about at home.

It is thus not (entirely) being facetious to suggest that to solve a poor communication issue all that is needed is communication!

...but that communication has to be between the right people.

P