Deciding is not the problem: why communication fails in execution.
Making decisions is part of the daily routine of any company. Every day, teams and leaders define priorities, adjust strategies, and provide guidance with the goal of moving the business forward.
At first glance, the process seems simple. But it’s not.
Because between the moment someone decides and the moment another person executes, there’s a communication journey that can go very right, or very wrong.
It is precisely in this interval, between the decision and the execution, that many of the invisible problems begin.
Communication is a powerful tool. However, the way it is put into practice can often seriously harm people and organizations. Interestingly, when it works, it supports decisions and strategies, but even so, it tends to be undervalued.
Communication, therefore, suffers from something inherent to it: invisibility.
And that’s not the only challenge.
When decisions are shared within companies in an incomplete or rushed manner, as so often happens, it is assumed that the message’s intent is obvious. The assumption is that the other person “will understand,” that the context is clear, and that the urgency is evident. This is where the first deviations arise.
When communication fails, especially at the source, the decision immediately begins to lose value. What was clear to the decision-maker is no longer evident to those who execute it.
At this point, interpretation becomes the first filter for alignment.
And from that moment on, execution ceases to be a continuation of the strategy and becomes an attempt at guesswork.
I myself have had to deal with this dilemma on several occasions in my professional life. When faced with a decision that I couldn’t understand or had misinterpreted, I had to rethink the way my reasoning worked. Let me give you an example.
When I started working as a freelancer with my brand “Pássaro Amarelo” (Yellow Bird), I began as an executive assistant at a company. The conditions involved part-time work, although without a pre-defined schedule.
On my very first day, one of the first tasks I was assigned was to organize the purchase of a wreath for a funeral.
And truth.
At first, it seemed like a simple request. And yet, it was misinterpreted.
I did what they asked: I found a partner who sold flowers for funerals and asked them to deliver the wreath to the company urgently, as instructed.
The problem is that this wasn’t what was implied.
The wreath was supposed to be delivered directly to the church where the body was lying in state. This required a company employee to travel quickly to the church before the funeral service was over.
It’s a case of saying that a misinterpreted decision can be transformed. And often, it transforms into operational errors that force teams to realign.
Communication in companies: because it’s not an isolated action, but a system.
There is a very common tendency in companies: to treat communication as a one-off, individualized action, disconnected from everything else that happens in the organization.
Sending an email is, for us, already communication.
Minutes are written at a meeting, and it is believed that the message was conveyed.
You share a communication from the CEO to the team and assume there is a solid communication structure in place.
From there, the idea is created that communication has taken place and that the company “does communication”.
But that’s not what happens.
Communication is not a moment. It’s a system.
Communication permeates the entire organization. It’s present in how information is structured, how decisions are transmitted, and, above all, how they are interpreted and executed.
It is, therefore, a system.
And when it is conceived as such, it takes on a structural role within the company. More than that: it allows confrontation to be framed as a natural part of organizational functioning and used as a necessary tool to correct deviations and align decisions.
When viewed as an isolated action, communication becomes reactive. It arises to solve problems, cover up mistakes, or address emergencies. There is no continuity or coherence. Each interaction exists independently, disconnected from the whole.
Throughout my career, I have worked in several companies where there was a structural problem in communication.
On the one hand, there was a clear fear of confrontation and, consequently, of using assertive communication that could somehow “shock” the sensibilities of some employees.
On the other hand, decisions were often confusing, with the purpose of the messages being unclear. This became even more evident during times of structural change, which were not clearly communicated to the teams.
The result was predictable: insecurity.
A legitimate concern arose regarding the future of their positions, the decisions underway, and the direction of the company. And when people work in fear, they cease to work with clarity.
This is a clear example of how poorly structured communication generates instability and how this instability directly affects the functioning of organizations.
At Pássaro Amarelo, that’s precisely the work we do: we don’t just want to improve how companies communicate, but to structure communication as a system that connects decision-making, context, and execution.
What lies behind companies with good internal communication?
There are companies and brands that naturally earn the reputation of being good communicators. And, conversely, there are businesses that fail because of poor communication.
In the first case, processes seem to unfold naturally, decisions are implemented without major friction, and teams appear to have a clear understanding of what is expected of them. Everyone knows how to find the information that answers a specific question in their daily work, and constant email exchanges, which only create unnecessary pressure to “respond,” are avoided.
I’m talking here about my own learning experience.
I’ve always worked with systems that pushed me towards heavy workloads, encouraging a constant exchange of emails. But, also because of this, I’ve been reprimanded for the number of emails I sent, when I could simply make a call to resolve a particular issue.
That’s why I know this pressure well.
Good communication is also communication that simplifies things. It’s when, looking at a context, you realize that the issue would be more easily resolved with an online meeting than with endless email exchanges.
For this, sensitivity alone is not enough. Clear rules are needed regarding what can be considered “good communication”.
Thus, what lies behind a functioning company is not a spontaneous system of common sense and reason. It is, almost always, an invisible structure based on how decisions are framed, the clarity with which they are communicated, and, above all, the alignment between what is decided and what is executed.
It is not the quantity of communication that guarantees this balance, but rather its consistency and, above all, its reasonableness.
It is at this point that communication ceases to be an additional effort and becomes an integral part of the organization’s functioning. It no longer arises merely to solve problems or respond to emergencies, but as a continuous element that links strategy and operation.
This doesn’t mean there are no mistakes or moments of tension. It does mean, however, that there is a system capable of absorbing and correcting them without compromising the overall balance of the company. When this foundation exists, the organization ceases to depend on constant individual efforts and begins to operate with greater stability.
It is precisely this dimension that is often not visible. What is observed is merely the result of structural work that takes place behind the scenes.
Therefore, Pássaro Amarelo is not just a writing and communication brand. It has the ability to tell a personal narrative, someone’s story, but also to look at business as an ecosystem where several pillars intersect: positioning, communication, and execution.
The illusion of good communication: when communicating a lot doesn’t mean communicating well.
Communicating isn’t enough to guarantee a company’s success. That’s because it’s possible to communicate a lot and still communicate poorly. It’s possible to have a strong presence and a powerful message, but fail in a comprehensive strategy that works.
This is where the illusion of good communication arises: the idea that communication solves everything, when, in reality, what matters is how that communication integrates into the functioning of the business.
In other words, it’s what we call a “communication ecosystem”: integrated within a specific human, social, and cultural context.
Without a strategy and good execution, decisions get lost along the way, teams work by approximation and “gut feeling.” One day, when we realize it, internal problems have grown to such a size that, by the time they become visible, they are already difficult to correct.
Therefore, more than just communicating better, it’s essential to structure things better. Understanding that communication isn’t just what is said, but what allows a decision to reach the execution stage intact.
Let’s not forget that it is execution that brings ideas and plans to life. It should therefore not be underestimated.
It is in this invisible world that communication, decision-making, and execution define the consistency of a business and, consequently, its future.
