The Shortest Path of Communication

One of the quiet ways companies become slower and weaker as they grow is through the way communication begins to move. In small companies, people tend to talk directly. The person closest to the problem can usually reach the person with the authority, context, or experience to help solve it. As the organization grows, layers get added for good reasons. Managers create accountability. Leaders create structure. Teams need clearer ownership. But over time, the structure itself can become a communication system, and that is where trouble starts.

A senior leader has a message, so they give it to their direct report. That person gives it to the next person. The message continues moving down the organization until it finally reaches the people who actually need to act on it. The logic seems respectful because nobody is “skipping levels,” but the outcome is often the opposite of what leadership intended. The message changes slightly with every handoff. Context disappears. Emphasis shifts. The reason behind the message gets lost. By the time it reaches the fifth person, it may resemble the original thought only in broad terms.

It is not very different from the game of telephone we played as children. The only difference is that in business, the result is not funny.

The same thing happens with feedback. A senior leader sees something happen at the line level and has useful feedback to give. Instead of talking directly to the person who experienced it, the leader gives the feedback to a manager, who gives it to another manager, who may or may not pass it along. Each person has less context than the person before them. Sometimes the message is softened. Sometimes it is misunderstood. Sometimes it never gets delivered at all. The senior leader assumes the feedback was handled. The employee never hears it. The organization loses the opportunity to improve.

I think that pattern is one of the most damaging forms of unnecessary hierarchy because it creates the appearance of communication without the benefit of actual communication.

My view is much simpler. Take the shortest reasonable path.

If you are leading a company or a large part of one and there is an important message that everyone needs to understand, communicate it directly. If you observe something at the line level and you have useful feedback that can help someone improve, give the feedback directly. If someone deeper in the organization has the context needed to solve a problem, talk to them. The org chart should help define who owns the work. It should not define who is allowed to speak to whom.

That does not mean managers should be ignored or bypassed. In fact, this philosophy works best when managers are strong enough to welcome direct communication rather than feel threatened by it. A senior leader can speak directly to someone on a team and still keep the manager informed. A CEO can communicate an important strategic idea to the full organization without taking ownership away from the leaders below them. Direct communication and clear accountability can exist at the same time.

The distinction matters because bureaucracy often hides behind the language of respect for structure. Leaders say they do not want to step on toes, so they avoid skip-level conversations. Managers say communication should come through them, so they become gatekeepers. Employees become cautious about reaching across levels. Eventually, everyone spends more time managing the path of communication than solving the actual problem.

That is how speed gets lost.

And speed is one of the most valuable advantages a company can have.

A business that can make good decisions quickly, move information quickly, and solve problems close to where they occur will outperform a business that needs five layers of translation to do the same thing. Every extra handoff introduces delay. Every delay creates room for confusion. Every communication barrier increases the odds that an issue gets larger before the right people see it.

This becomes even more important in areas like product and customer experience. The person closest to the customer often sees the problem first. If that information has to travel through several management layers before it reaches Product, the organization becomes slower at learning. If a product leader has to communicate through multiple layers before a seller understands a meaningful product change, the customer gets a weaker experience. If sales feedback is filtered repeatedly before it reaches leadership, the company starts operating on a version of reality that has already been edited.

Strong companies should want less distance between truth and decision-making.

That is one of the reasons I believe senior leaders should spend meaningful time with people at the line level. It is not simply about morale or visibility. It is one of the best ways to understand how the organization actually works. A dashboard can tell you whether a number moved. A frontline employee can tell you why. A report can tell you that a process is being followed. The person doing the work can tell you whether the process makes any sense.

That proximity also creates an important leadership opportunity. Senior leaders often have years of pattern recognition and judgment that younger employees have not had the time to build yet. If that experience stays trapped at the top of the org chart, the company wastes one of its most valuable assets. Direct interaction gives leaders the chance to coach, mentor, and develop the next generation in real time.

There is also a cultural signal in this. When people see senior leaders willing to talk directly, give clear feedback, and engage with the work, it changes the way communication feels across the company. It tells people that hierarchy exists for ownership, not status. It tells managers that their role is to help the business perform, not control access. It tells employees that good ideas and important problems should move quickly to the people who can do something about them.

That creates a much healthier organization.

The goal should not be a company with no structure. Structure matters. Reporting lines matter. Clear ownership matters. Companies become chaotic when nobody knows who is responsible for what. But structure should make work easier. The moment structure begins slowing down information, weakening feedback, or creating distance between leaders and reality, it has stopped serving the business.

I think the test is simple. When an important message needs to move, ask whether it is taking the shortest reasonable path. When someone needs feedback, ask whether the person with the best context is actually giving it. When a problem appears, ask whether the right people are speaking directly or whether the organization is routing the conversation through hierarchy because that feels safer.

The safest path is not always the strongest path.

Sometimes the strongest thing a leader can do is communicate directly, preserve the original meaning, and help the person closest to the work get better.

The org chart should tell us who owns the outcome.

It should not tell us who we are allowed to talk to.