Inform or communicate? Understanding the difference for a high-performance organization
In the field, I often see organizations convinced that they’re communicating well, when all they’re really doing is informing. They send out emails, post announcements on the intranet, organize meetings… and yet, employees continue to say that they don’t know what’s going on, that they don’t understand the direction being taken, that they don’t feel involved, that they don’t see a vision.
Why is that? Becausewe confuse information with communication. Because we think that sending a message means being understood. Because we believe that facts alone are enough to convince. But a message isn’t just content, it’s also the way it’s conveyed, received and experienced.
Informing vs. communicating: a fundamental difference
Information is essentially a top-down, often unidirectional process: data is transmitted, data is requested, instructions are given, figures are shared. It can be essential, but remains passive until it generates commitment.
Communication, on the other hand, is an interactional process. It’s not just a matter of speaking, but of ensuring that the other person has understood, integrated and adopted the message. To communicate is to give meaning, to transform information into a dynamic that creates support.
Let’s take an example I see all too often:
– A manager sends out an internal memo announcing a strategic change
→ he informs.
– A manager assembles his team, explains why this change is necessary, shares his convictions, listens to reactions and adjusts his discourse → he communicates.
The nuance is enormous. In one case, you’re imposing a message; in the other, you’re engaging in a conversation.
Why top-down information isn’t enough
What I see in the field is not teams demotivated by a lack of information. What I see are teams demotivated by a lack of meaning. How many times have I heard employees say:
– “We’re bombarded with e-mails, but nobody explains why we’re doing all this.”
– “We’re set productivity targets, without considering the real impact on our work.”
– “We’re told about commitment, but our managers don’t listen to us.”
In many organizations, we talk about performance, efficiency and productivity. Numbers, KPIs and deadlines are set. But we forget that behind these objectives, there are human beings who need to understand, adhere to and give meaning to their work.
And this is where I see a common mistake: leaders push for results without explaining why. They think that meaning is implicit, that the obvious is enough to mobilize. But this is not the case. Meaning is the energy we inject into the system. It’s what ensures that a project is carried out with conviction rather than mechanically.
Successful transformation requires more than just numerical targets: it requires a unifying narrative. Successful companies are those where leaders take the time to translate strategy into a clear, engaging message, where they give meaning before demanding results.
How to transform information into effective communication
I see managers who are trying to communicate better, but who are doing it badly. They send more emails, hold more meetings, add more reports. They think that by putting out more information, they’ll improve communication. But what they forget is the human link. And that means time and space. So what’s the answer? Here’s what I recommend most often:
Look people in the eye
Even before speaking, you need to be present in the relationship. A look, an open posture, an authentic presence. Because if in the first few seconds you’re reading your notes or staring at your screen, your message is already weakened.
Tell your story: what motivates you, what makes sense to you
If you yourself, as a leader, don’t believe in what you’re saying, how do you expect your team to buy into it? It’s not a question of selling dreams, but of explaining why this mission is important, even if it’s not pleasant. If it’s hard, say so. Employees can understand difficult decisions, as long as you tell them the real reasons.
Give the team space: ask them what it means to them. You can’t impose a message and expect immediate buy-in. Frustration is part of the process. You have to leave room for reactions and get employees to find their own meaning in what’s being asked of them.
A key question to ask: “How can this project make sense for you, once the frustration has passed?”
When you ask this question, you change the dynamic. We transform a constraint into a lever for reflection. Employees become actors of meaning, instead of mere executors.
Support this momentum with consistent internal communications
The role of internal communications is to reinforce these relationships, not replace them. Digital tools, newsletters and corporate messages must extend, not contradict, exchanges in the field.
Effective communication is not just about conveying a message, it must be multi-layered: relational, operational and strategic. I don’t think you can motivate a team with numbers. You motivate them with a vision, an embodied project, a message that echoes what they experience on a daily basis. So, the next time you need to convey a key message, ask yourself these three questions:
Did I take the time to create a bond before speaking?
Have I explained why this subject matters to me?
Have I enabled the team to give meaning to this project, beyond the constraints?
If the answer is no, then you’re still in the information business, not the communication business.
