I’ve dealt with many communication failures in the places where I have worked. It seems that the talking really isn’t the problem or that TO:, CC: and BCC: really don’t play a role in the outcome of the purpose of the communication.

It comes down to ownership. Who owns the thing that you’re communicating about, are they informed and is that ownership respected. Often times people become impatient, want to “help,” want to get credit for or just want to do it their way. Which, in turn, massively distills the effectiveness of communication. If I am the solutions architect, for instance, and there is a fundamental change to “architecture” then I had better be involved and own up to the outcome.

I’m not talking about the RACI mess, to me that’s a lot of work and works just to say I’ve got it. Most things can be absolutely inferred as to who owns them. I’m not talking about the ambiguous lines like an organizational decision such as making core hours for the teams; more like the decision to change systems or software patterns.

Consider how these things pan out in life…

I own the budget in my household because i am better at numbers and cash; no “formal” decision was ever made to make me the budget czar. If you “own” something, make sure you do just that. Otherwise there will be a lot more mud in your waters that you need to inherit.