Author
Tamara Pevec Barborič
This is not necessarily due to underestimating it. Quite the opposite. Communication is often so taken for granted within organizations that it is not considered a decision in its own right. There is an implicit assumption that communication is something we “already know how to do,” and that decisions will therefore be conveyed almost organically. That good decisions will be recognized as such. That they will be understood without much effort.
But this is precisely where things begin to unravel.
In practice, misunderstandings rarely arise because decisions themselves are wrong. Much more often, they stem from the way those decisions are presented.
A decision can be well thought-out and well-founded, but if it is not placed within a clear communication framework, it begins to take on a life of its own—through different perspectives, interpretations, assumptions, and the gaps that others fill.
The key question, therefore, is not only what was said, but how, to whom, and when. And just as importantly: what was left unsaid.
Many still see communication as the final phase of a process: first analysis, then decision, and finally communication.
This logic appears efficient, but it creates a gap between the decision and its understanding.
Communication is not merely the transfer of information. It is the framework through which people interpret a decision and assign meaning to it. If we start thinking about that framework only at the end, we have already missed a part of the process that significantly determines whether the decision will actually come to life.
When communication is understood as part of the decision itself, the questions we ask begin to change. It is no longer only about what the right solution is, but also:
- who needs to understand it, who needs to accept it, and who needs to implement it,
- where potential points of misunderstanding or resistance may arise, and
- what context people need in order to truly make the decision their own.
This is not a matter of style, but of responsibility. A decision that is not understood exists only formally within an organization.
The more complex the decision, the more deliberate the communication around it needs to be.
Simple decisions can rely on directness. Complex ones require a layered approach—repetition, explanation, contextualization, and space for questions.
When communication is overlooked or underestimated, it almost inevitably resurfaces later—through additional clarifications, correcting misinterpretations, or silent resistance. Poor or absent communication can even escalate into crisis situations.
Communication does not disappear. It simply shifts to a phase where it demands more time, more energy, and often more trust than is available.
This is why communication cannot be treated as an add-on or a soft skill. It is an integral part of the decision and directly influences its outcomes. Organizations that understand this do not use communication merely to transfer information, but to create understanding and build trust.
And this is increasingly where the difference lies today—between decisions that remain on paper and those that truly come to life in practice.