zlacker

I wonder if you could checksum the telephone game by having a 2-level comms. That way the VP could validate that the Director didn't make a mistake when communicating to the EMs.

Eg,

n-level comms are where a CEO communicates to the entire org

1-level comms are where CEO->CTO->VP->Directors->EMs->ICs

2-level comms:

CEO->CTO+VPs

CTO->VPs+Directors

VP->Directors+EMs

Director->EM+ICs

>>tarr11+(OP)
An additional benefit of 2-level comms is that you get send some slightly-irrelevant information, but it's clear you aren't expected to read it. This gives you a passive awareness of some of the other stuff that's going on in the organisation, and who you can ask about it.

>>tarr11+(OP)
Yes, this glue is important. E.g., the VP dropping by the EM's staff meeting to give a tailored version of the message and do some Q&A, and the VP doing skip-level 1:1 meetings to get the perspective as seen by the EMs. If you build kind of a mesh of redundant communications, you can better course-correct (which also means correcting the original message after observing its actual effect on the team).

>>tarr11+(OP)
The term of art for this practice is “skip-level 1:1s”. It’s not ubiquitous but many think it’s a good idea, particularly when stepping into a new role/org. Obviously it can end up being a lot of meetings so it’s typically on a quarterly or less cadence.

Because of the branching factor it’s not feasible to do this for every bit of comms.