A company announces a major transformation. The chief executive officer uses sophisticated but polished language and tells employees that the organisation will become more digital, agile and customer-focussed.
The employees applaud. Six months later, little has changed. Perhaps the employees understood the announcement but did not understand what it meant for their work.
The above shows why a strategy can be sound on paper but fail if people don't understand what it means for their work.
It underscores the importance of strategic communication and why it is becoming an important leadership competency needed to bring decisions into fruition.
Communication in an organisation no longer means simply transmitting information; it also means providing context to employees.
While in ordinary communication, it may be enough to say "We are restructuring our organisation, strategic communication needs to explain why we are restructuring, what problem we trying to resolve, what it means for employees and where we are going".
Employees today don't just need information; they need context and meaning.
A leader must connect strategy, purpose and action. It is therefore even more important for the leader to explain why.
In an environment that is in a constant state of flux with AI, digitalisation, restructuring, new markets and changing customer expectations, if employees are to be committed to change, it is important that they are told why the change is necessary.
Telling people what to do creates compliance. Explaining why it matters can create commitment.
Nokia provides an example of what can happen when an organisation recognises the need for change but struggles to translate that recognition into timely organisational action.
By the time Nokia responded decisively to the rapid shift towards smartphones, competitors such as Apple and Google had already established strong positions in the market.
The lesson is that recognising change is not enough. Leaders must communicate the urgency of change clearly and ensure that the message is understood and acted upon throughout the organisation.
Some organisations may not choose to communicate everything hoping to inform employees at the right time.
At a time when information travels at lightning speed, it may not be a good idea to withhold information as it would invariably find its way into the hands of the employees.
When explanations from leaders are not forthcoming, employees simply don't stop thinking but they speculate.
If there is a restructuring on the horizon, all sorts of thoughts would come into the minds such as "Is my job safe, Is the company in trouble, what happens next".
The effect can be demoralising for staff, as when leaders leave an information vacuum, employees may fill it with their own interpretations.
Microsoft provides a useful example.
When Satya Nadella became CEO, he sought to shift the company towards a "growth mindset" and greater collaboration.
The change was not simply about introducing new products; employees had to understand a different way of working and thinking.
By communicating the purpose behind the transformation, leadership could connect the company's strategy with what it expected from employees.
Strategic communication is about two-way communication. It is not only communication that flows downwards but also information that flows upwards from employees to decision makers and leaders.
Frontline employees would know what customers are complaining about, where systems are not working, why employees are resisting change and where the strategy is difficult to implement.
Unless there is a two-way flow of communication, an organisation cannot be agile enough to meet the changing expectations of customers.
It is customary for companies to hire communication professionals, but they still cannot replace messages from leaders.
Communication professionals can help formulate messages, but when there is a strategic change, employees expect communication from leaders.
Communication cannot be outsourced when it comes to key issues within the company because these issues require the voice and presence of the leader.
Leadership was once associated with making decisions, setting targets and giving directions.
In an increasingly complex world, decisions would have to be made by different levels of employees, and leaders must explain clearly the thinking behind the decision and elicit feedback from employees who have their hands on the pulse of the customers and the markets.
The leaders of the future must not only know where the organisation is going but also why it is going there.
* The writer holds an MBA from the University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom, awarded under the British Chevening Scholarship programme. With extensive experience in the financial markets and management education, he also served at a prominent think tank. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Business Times.
© New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd