zlacker

the times that I've observed nuanced comms break down at scale, it is usually because genuine conversation is not possible, for a variety of reasons ranging from the number of people who would need to be involved in said conversations to political games of power. so then it becomes the job of a million layers of middle management playing telephone to translate

but nuanced communication is also a skill that can be worked on, and certain classes of misunderstandings can be mitigated. dan calls this out in his post, but ironically a major one was missed in it as well: the resulting conversation seems to be entirely about individuals capability (based on IQ and other BS) to understand messages conveyed to them, rather than about the complex organizational dynamics that might result in someone being pushed into interpreting a message as something other than what it is

EDIT: I'd also note that nuanced comms are equally difficult in large orgs irregardless of the size of the group being spoken to. For example, I've had VP+ (a smaller group given that the comms are going upward rather than down the org chart) misinterpret technical findings presented to them. There's so much extra cognitive overhead inherent in interpreting messages when you're in a Machiavellian experiment (aka the modern bigco environment)