Communication is a trust exercise

One of the most common misconceptions I encounter in my work with senior leaders is that if a message is clear enough, everyone will interpret it the way they intend.

If only it worked that way! People don't just read the words on the page. They read the words through the lens of their existing beliefs about the organization and its leaders. They also bring their own experiences, needs and assumptions to what they read. 

If employees trust leadership, they tend to give ambiguous statements the benefit of the doubt. If trust is low, they tend to search for hidden motives, inconsistencies or evidence that leadership isn't being fully forthcoming. The exact same message can land completely differently depending on the trust environment in which it's received.

That doesn't make writing unimportant. It actually makes it more important. Good communication can't create trust on its own, but it can prevent unnecessary erosion of trust by reducing opportunities for people to draw conflicting conclusions.

Fortunately, there are practical ways to reduce the likelihood of misunderstandings.

1. Identify your key message

Every piece of communication contains two things: a central message and a set of implications. The central message is what everyone should understand, regardless of their role or perspective. The implications are the conclusions different audiences will naturally draw for themselves.

Our job is to make the key message unmistakable while recognizing that people will bring different concerns and assumptions to it. In my experience, the message doesn't need to address every potential question that may arise, but it does need to prevent contradictory interpretations of the central point.

Consider the example of a company announcing a return-to-office (RTO) policy requiring employees to spend three days a week in the office. Rather than trying to address every audience concern at once (guaranteed to result in a message that feels cluttered or ambiguous), effective communications clarifies the core takeaway: "We are asking employees to spend three days per week in the office because we believe in-person collaboration is important to how we work and grow as a company."

That message should be understood by everyone. Some may agree with the decision and others may not, but there should be consensus about what’s changing and why.

2. Anticipate the questions different audiences will bring

None of us are blank slates. We each have our own attitudes and experiences that we bring to the table. Effective communicators take the time to understand what’s at stake for different audiences and empathize with their perspectives. 

In the RTO example, employees may wonder how the policy will affect their work-life balance and commute. Managers may wonder how consistently the policy should be enforced. Prospective recruits may question whether flexibility remains part of the employee experience. Investors may ask whether leadership believes in-person work will improve performance. These audiences are all reading the same announcement, but they’re looking for different things.

A communicator who understands these concerns can address them directly: "While employees will be expected in the office three days per week, teams will retain flexibility in determining which days work best for their schedules and business needs."

That single sentence doesn't answer every potential question, but it acknowledges one of the primary concerns employees are likely to have. This matters because people engage most deeply with the parts of a message that affect them personally. 

3. Pay attention to emotional interpretation as much as factual interpretation 

This is where a lot of corporate writing falls short. While it’s important to ask "Are the facts of the situation represented accurately?" an equally important question is "How will this feel to someone reading it?"

A statement can be factually correct and still leave readers feeling that the organization is dodging the real issue, or not being forthcoming about something. This can be avoided by considering the range of likely reactions, assumptions and misunderstandings before a message is published (again we see the importance of empathy!).

Consider this version of the RTO announcement: "Employees are expected to return to the office to boost overall organizational performance and productivity." Leadership may intend this to be a statement about organizational effectiveness. Employees, however, may read it and think that leadership doesn't trust people to work from home. 

A communicator who anticipates that interpretation might instead write: "We have seen the greatest benefits when teams can combine the flexibility of remote work with the collaboration, mentoring and relationship-building that happen most effectively in person."

The policy remains the same, but the framing is less likely to trigger unintended assumptions about trust.

Takeaway: communication and trust are closely connected

Organizations often assume that trust is built through actions and communication serves primarily to explain those actions. In reality, the two have a symbiotic relationship. Trust shapes how messages are interpreted, and communication shapes whether trust is reinforced or weakened.

No amount of careful wording can overcome a lack of trust. But thoughtful communication can prevent unnecessary damage by reducing ambiguity and demonstrating that leaders understand how their messages will be received. And at a time when trust in institutions is suffering, that may be one of the most important responsibilities communicators have.