But the ideal form of communication can change dramatically from one situation to another. The optimal way for bosses to communicate strategic plans to their team, for example, likely differs from the best way for two coworkers to discuss a point of contention.
Here are five strategies based on research and insight from the Kellogg School that people and teams may use to improve their communication in different work scenarios.
As an organization grows and separates its workers into teams, it often becomes increasingly difficult for them to share information efficiently.
Niko Matouschek, a professor of strategy at the Kellogg School, partnered with Kellogg colleagues Michael Powell and Bryony Reich to develop a mathematical model to understand the optimal way for companies to have their teams communicate about their work. The researchers focused specifically on communication within the context of companies that build their products by combining separately made, replaceable parts—like Boeing and IBM.
Among all the communication strategies that the model considered, the most efficient involved organizing teams into two different types: the core and the periphery. In the core, teams share almost all of their information with each other, whereas in the periphery, teams only communicate with each other and with the core to discuss the most critical information.
“People who happen to be in the core, they communicate a lot; they tell each other everything,” Matouschek says. “But they might or might not tell a lot of information to people who are in these different peripheries.”
This structure ensures an organization’s core teams are kept fully informed of important information, while its peripheral teams have as much time as possible to focus on their main work. In other words, it maximizes resource efficiency while minimizing the risk of lapses in communication.
In the workplace, “we can try to have a strong, meaningful connection with somebody, but what that requires is we must make ourselves vulnerable to that person,” says Eli J. Finkel, a professor of management and organizations at the Kellogg School.
In a professional context, that might look like emotional vulnerability, or it could mean putting one’s trust in a colleague to deliver on their part of a project.
Vulnerability and trust come with risks. “If you and I are going to collaborate on a project, I have to trust that you’re going to get your side done on time and with high quality. And if I trust you to do that and I’m wrong, there are real costs for me,” Finkel explains.
The other option is to remain closed off, or to express one’s mistrust by micromanaging. “All of us, always, in relationships confront a trade-off between really leaning in and saying, ‘This is a relationship that I’m going to allow myself to depend on in various ways,’ versus ‘I’m going to make sure that I’m safe and that this person can’t ever exploit me or disappoint me in some way,’” he says.
Thoughtfully considering these trade-offs—and not being too risk-averse—is key to professional success.
In a recent study, Kellogg’s Jillian Chown and colleagues investigated how the expansion of a cancer center and the subsequent relocation of part of its clinical staff affected their workflow and communication.
Not only did clinicians who moved to another building communicate in person less often, but so did the clinicians who stayed in the main building. Instead of planning treatments together in the same room as they used to, the teams increasingly turned to email communication.
The results highlight an often-unintended consequence of growing an organization: fewer face-to-face interactions. “It can affect both communication and collaboration, and this research shows that organizations need to be prepared for those consequences,” says Chown, an associate professor of management and organizations.
In the post-pandemic world, where remote work has become more common, it is often left up to the workers themselves to figure out which work can be done remotely, Chown says.
“In this study, it appeared that the clinicians were making the right call by still coming together on the most complicated cases,” she says. “But that’s what leaders need to be aware of—when it is most necessary for employees to collaborate in person.”
How we talk about ourselves has concrete benefits. We could use the opportunity to create an impression in a work meeting, stand out in a job interview, or become a colleague our peers turn to for clarity on issues.
One way we misstep when it comes to describing our work or career is miscalibrating how much to share, says Craig Wortmann, a clinical professor of marketing at the Kellogg School.
“The answers tend to cluster too much or too little,” he says.
Too little might be something like “I’m a professor” or “I do mergers and acquisitions.” These are, of course, accurate descriptions of a job, but not particularly engaging. On the other side of the spectrum, people may have had the experience of being at a conference, asking someone what they do, and receiving an excruciatingly detailed breakdown of their day-to-day. “That’s a mistake,” says Wortmann; “you’re saying too much and now you’re way over your skis and you’re over-manifesting knowledge.”
One way to think about a crisp response is that it spurs a conversation. In contrast to monologuing about what you do, being crisp invites the other person to ask a logical follow-up question.
By developing the ability to be crisp in our responses, we’re doing everyone a favor. “That’s an act of generosity in a noisy, distracted world,” Wortmann says.
Do your company’s strategy meetings feel like “talk shops” in which senior leaders speak first and often, eclipsing others?
If so, you are not alone, says Sanjay Khosla, an executive coach and senior fellow and adjunct professor of marketing at the Kellogg School. Many leaders convene strategic-planning meetings that bring together colleagues from across functions and management levels but fail to capitalize on the talent in the room.
Often, these leaders drive their agendas instead of conducting “discovery workshops,” where new ideas and junior talent may flourish, says Khosla. As a result, employees disengage and hold back from sharing information.
“This goes against the most fundamental principle of leadership: listening,” Khosla says.
To drive better company strategy, he says, leaders should implement a different, perhaps surprising, tactic for strategic-planning meetings: mute the boss. By intentionally keeping silent, leaders create space for new ideas and talent development—which fuels innovation.
“Muting the boss is a development tool as well as a tool that leaves room for broader contributions to the business’s strategic vision,” Khosla says.
