What does “good communication” actually mean in organisations?

In an organisation, some employees may feel disconnected and as though they are not being kept informed about what’s happening in their workplace. The concern is voiced and the response is familiar: more updates, meetings, messages from leadership and perhaps another communication channel.

Absolutely none of this is irrational because if communication is the problem, then more communication should improve it.

But does it really work? Often, good communication is reduced to clarity, reach and frequency. Now the questions become: was the message clear, did everyone receive it and was it repeated enough? These questions are very real but they don’t necessarily tell if communication was actually good. They just describe how successfully information went from one place to the other.

So if clarity, reach and frequency aren’t enough to define good communication, what is? Organisational communication quality depends on whether the information is useful, timely, accurate and adequate (Van Zoonen et al., 2024). In their study, they also found that communication quality was more important than the frequency when they looked at the relationship between workplace isolation and trust.

Additionally, using digital channels frequently didn’t automatically improve communication satisfaction. It may suggest that the context and quality matter along with channel use (Tkalac Verčič & Verčič, 2025). A lot of information can become difficult to manage and information overload was associated with digital workplace stress and exhaustion (Marsh et al., 2024). So the point is that more isn’t the same as better when it comes to communication. But communication also depends on whether employees can respond. 

What else matters? Employees aren’t only receiving information. What they have to say also matters. It’s possible that an organisation can share details really well while still having a weak communication environment if employees find it difficult to contribute, especially when questioning or disagreement is involved (Weiss et al., 2023). 

When all these studies are considered together, they suggest that “good communication” cannot be judged only by how much an organisation says. It includes:

• Information being timely, accurate and useful
• Opportunities for employees to contribute instead of just receive
• Conditions in which contribution is possible
• An environment that doesn’t overwhelm employees with information 

All in all, maybe better communication comes down to what it helps people understand and whether it leaves room for them to respond.

References

Marsh, E., Vallejos, E. P., & Spence, A. (2024). Overloaded by information or worried about missing out on it: A quantitative study of stress, burnout, and mental health implications in the digital workplace. SAGE Open, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241268830

Van Zoonen, W., Sivunen, A. E., & Blomqvist, K. (2024). Out of sight – Out of trust? An analysis of the mediating role of communication frequency and quality in the relationship between workplace isolation and trust. European Management Journal, 42(4), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.04.006

Verčič, A. T., & Verčič, D. (2025). The internal communication paradox: Balancing digital convenience with face-to-face satisfaction. Public Relations Review, 51(3), 102587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2025.102587

Weiss, M., Morrison, E. W., & Szyld, D. (2023). I like what you are saying, but only if i feel safe: Psychological safety moderates the relationship between voice and perceived contribution to healthcare team effectiveness. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1129359. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1129359