An ironic example of poor communication

Here is an example of frustrating writing that I stumbled across because the topic happened to be internal communication. After being hooked by a strong title, "Internal communication saves time and money" and ploughing through a fairly uninspiring example of the consequences of not communicating effectively, I arrived at the author's conclusion, where the words "internal communication" were used for the first time in the text:

Large companies often have entire departments dedicated to internal communication, but small companies are far from immune from communication problems. Learning when and how to communicate can be the difference between a good company and a great one.

Setting aside the fact the construction of the first sentence could give the impression that having an entire department dedicated to internal communication means those companies have communication problems, the conclusion made me bury my head in my hands.

Here is a piece aimed at a small business audience, designed to make that audience think about how its members engage with their people. Kudos for that. After all, I have previously written about small businesses needing to benefit from engagement inclusion. But after telling the audience that the difference between a good company and a great one is learning how and when to communicate, the piece leaves them hanging in mid air because it does nothing to tell the audience how to do this or even where to start. It's like a multi millionaire being asked to explain how to become super wealthy and replying "work long hours and invest wisely".

Think how much more valuable this piece would have been if it had pointed readers - who are likely to have time constraints given the nature of small business - to resources that would help them, books they could read, reports that showcase leading practice, or listed some simple practical steps they could take to promote better communication and engagement in their organisation.

Could you imagine the reaction of employees if they received a memo from their CEO telling them a horror story from another business and concluding that they must work smarter, but not explaining how? That's what the article felt like. Although the sentiment was right, the information the audience would most want was missing. The irony is that the article itself is a good example of the poor communication it encourages others to avoid.