The hidden cost of leaving too much open to interpretation

Many organisations believe they have a communication problem. Teams are working in silos. Messages are being misunderstood. Decisions are not filtering through. People are not taking enough ownership.

But, according to Dori Moreno – a growth strategist specialising in the development of individuals, teams and businesses – these challenges are often symptoms of something deeper.

“Leaders often say, ‘We need better communication.’ But when we unpack it, the issue is usually deeper than communication. People are in meetings, sending updates, using WhatsApp groups, sharing emails and having conversations. There is a lot being said, but not enough being understood, agreed on or acted on.

“Communication is not just about passing information along. It is about creating shared meaning. If the meaning is unclear, the message will keep breaking down,” she says. “And at the mid-year point, this becomes especially important. Many businesses are reviewing performance, but not necessarily reviewing whether their teams are aligned around the same priorities, decisions and direction.”

She believes many organisations mistake information-sharing for alignment. “A business often thinks it is aligned because everyone attended the same meeting or nodded at the same presentation. But attendance is not alignment. Agreement in a room is not alignment. Silence is not alignment.

“The signs of false alignment show up afterward. Once the meeting ends, different interpretations begin to emerge. Priorities start competing. Side conversations take over. Agreement in the room often gives way to very different behaviour afterward.”

According to Moreno, some organisations also mistake harmony for alignment. “Because there is no obvious conflict, leaders assume everyone is on the same page. But real alignment is not the absence of disagreement; it is the ability to surface disagreement early enough to make better decisions.”

The consequences become visible when different parts of the business are working from different interpretations of the same goal.

“Sales may interpret growth one way. Operations may interpret it another way. Finance may interpret it through cost control. None of those interpretations is necessarily wrong, but if they are not brought together around shared priorities, the business starts pulling in different directions.

The result is duplication, mixed messages and slower execution.

“It also creates emotional strain, as individuals begin reading between the lines and trying to work out what leadership really means. People are working hard, but not always working together,” she adds.

The instinct in many organisations is to respond with more meetings and more updates. But Moreno feels that simply adds weight to an already overloaded system. “If the direction is unclear, another meeting just gives people another space to talk around the same uncertainty. If decisions are not properly closed, another conversation may just reopen them.

“More meetings can even create the illusion that progress is happening. Yes, people feel busy and leaders feel engaged, but unless there is clarity around what was decided, who owns what and what changes now, the business has not moved forward.”

She believes one of the biggest warning signs is when information flow becomes heavier because it is compensating for weak foundations. “The more unclear the business is, the more communication it needs to keep itself going.”

Ownership is another area where confusion often surfaces. “People do not know whether they have authority or whether they still need permission. As a result, they over-check, escalate unnecessarily or wait for someone more senior to step in.

“In many businesses, leaders say they want people to take ownership, but ownership has not been clearly defined. People cannot take ownership of what has not been made clear. This is especially common in founder-led and growing businesses, where decisions often sit close to one or two key people and the rest of the team is left interpreting direction rather than owning it.”

Moreno recently facilitated a culture and alignment process where the issue was never a lack of discussion.

“People cared deeply about the business, but there was uncertainty around ownership, decision flow and how certain behaviours should show up day to day. As those issues were addressed, the quality of conversations changed and responsibility increased. The focus shifted away from blame and toward understanding what the business needed in order to move forward.”

For Moreno, the answer is not always more discussion.

“Before those in charge try to make sense of why people are not communicating, they need to recognise where they have left too much undecided, unspoken or assumed. Often, what organisations need is clearer decisions before they need more conversations. Perhaps the more uncomfortable question leaders need to ask themselves is not, ‘Why are people not understanding?’ but rather, ‘What have we left open to interpretation?’”

She concludes: “Communication problems often start with what has not been clarified, not with what teams have failed to hear. And when leaders leave too much open to interpretation, people do not stop working. They simply start pulling in different directions.”

Image credit: Magnific/KamranAydinov