Methods of communication

Visual communication is communication that uses images — such as charts, graphs, diagrams, videos or signs — to present information in a way that is quick and easy to understand.

One strength of spoken communication is that it allows instant feedback. Because the sender and receiver are talking directly, the receiver can ask questions immediately and the sender can clarify anything misunderstood on the spot. This makes spoken communication fast and reduces the risk of errors, which is especially useful for urgent or complex discussions.

The first suitable method is video conferencing (electronic). It lets the manager brief team members in different countries at the same time while still seeing and hearing them, so it combines speed and wide reach with some feedback and tone. This allows the global team to ask questions and feel involved despite the distance.

The second suitable method is a written/electronic project document shared by email or the intranet. This provides a permanent record of the project's details — objectives, deadlines and responsibilities — that team members in different time zones can read and refer back to whenever they need.

Using both together is effective: the video briefing gives interaction and clarity, while the written document gives an accurate, lasting reference. This suits a global team that is spread across distances and time zones.

Choosing a method of communication is not about finding one 'best' method but about matching the method to the situation, and several factors influence this.

The first factor is the complexity and detail of the message. A detailed, technical or legal message is best put in writing so it is accurate and can be referred back to, whereas a simple or urgent message can be spoken or sent electronically. Choosing wrongly here causes misunderstanding or wastes time.

The second factor is the need for feedback and the message's sensitivity. If discussion or empathy is needed — for example delivering bad news or solving a problem — a spoken/face-to-face method is better because it allows instant feedback and conveys tone. Using a cold electronic message for sensitive news can damage relationships and morale.

The third factor is the audience and distance involved. To reach many people across different locations quickly and cheaply, electronic methods such as email, intranet or video conferencing are most suitable; for one person nearby, a quick conversation may be better.

A fourth factor is the need for a permanent record (for legal or reference purposes) and the cost and technology available.

Overall, the right method depends on weighing these factors together for the particular message and audience. Often the most effective approach combines methods — for example a spoken briefing followed by a written confirmation — so that the business gains speed, clarity and a record at the same time.

Moving from face-to-face to electronic communication has clear attractions for a growing business, but the decision needs careful evaluation because each method suits different situations.

The case for the move. Electronic communication is fast, far-reaching and low-cost. As the business grows and perhaps operates across several sites, email, instant messaging and video calls let managers reach many staff instantly without the time and expense of bringing people together. Electronic methods also create a record that can be referred back to, and support remote and flexible working, which can help recruit and retain staff. For routine information and coordinating a larger, more dispersed workforce, the move can genuinely improve speed and efficiency.

The case against the move. Replacing most face-to-face contact carries real risks. Information overload can mean important messages are missed in busy inboxes, causing errors. Electronic messages are impersonal and easily misread because they lack tone, which can damage relationships and is particularly poor for sensitive matters such as discipline, conflict or bad news. Reduced face-to-face contact can also weaken team relationships, trust and motivation, and not all communication problems can be solved by typing — some need the empathy and instant feedback of conversation. Over-reliance on technology also creates risk if systems fail.

Weighing it up (criterion). The decision should be judged against the type of communication involved and the firm's circumstances. For routine, factual and large-scale messages across a growing, multi-site business, electronic methods are clearly appropriate. For sensitive, complex or relationship-building communication, face-to-face (or at least video, which preserves some tone) remains superior.

Judgement. Replacing most face-to-face communication is only partly justified. The growing business is right to expand its use of electronic methods for routine, mass and cross-site communication, where they save time and cost. However, abandoning face-to-face contact for sensitive and relationship-critical situations would harm motivation and increase misunderstanding. The strongest decision is therefore not to replace face-to-face communication but to use a blend — electronic methods for routine and dispersed communication, retained face-to-face (or video) contact for sensitive and team-building situations — because the right method depends on the message, and a growing firm needs both efficiency and strong working relationships.

For a message to be understood, it must travel through the communication process — encoded by the sender, carried by a method, and decoded by the receiver — without being distorted. The method chosen clearly matters, but whether it is the most important factor in ensuring understanding depends on the situation.

The case that method choice is the most important factor. The method strongly shapes whether a message is understood. A detailed, technical message delivered verbally may be forgotten or muddled, whereas the same message in writing is accurate and referable. Sensitive news delivered by a cold email can be misread, whereas face-to-face delivery conveys tone and allows clarification. A page of figures may confuse staff, whereas a clear chart makes the trend obvious. In each case, choosing the wrong method directly causes misunderstanding, so matching method to message can be the decisive factor in whether communication succeeds.

The case that other factors matter more. First, the clarity of the message itself can outweigh the method: a poorly written or jargon-filled message will be misunderstood whatever method carries it, while a clear message survives a less-than-ideal method. Second, feedback is essential: even the best method fails if there is no way for the receiver to confirm understanding or ask questions, so building in two-way communication may matter more than the method. Third, barriers and 'noise' — language differences, cultural gaps, a long chain of command, or a demotivated, inattentive receiver — can block understanding regardless of method. Fourth, the skills and attitude of sender and receiver (listening, encoding clearly, willingness to engage) heavily influence understanding. These factors suggest method is one of several determinants, not automatically the most important.

Weighing it up (criterion). The most important factor depends on where the greatest risk of breakdown lies for that message. If the danger is that the message is too complex or sensitive for the chosen channel, method choice is decisive. If the danger is unclear wording, no feedback, or barriers such as jargon or a long chain, then those factors matter more — fixing the method alone would not ensure understanding.

Judgement. Choosing the right method is a very important factor — often the first thing to get right — but not universally the most important. It is most decisive when the mismatch between method and message is the main threat to understanding, such as detailed information sent verbally or sensitive news sent electronically. However, where the real obstacles are unclear messages, missing feedback, or barriers like language and a long chain of command, those factors outweigh method choice. The most defensible conclusion is that ensuring understanding requires getting several things right together — a clear message, an appropriate method, feedback and the removal of barriers — so method choice is best seen as one essential factor among several, decisive in some situations but not in all.