When communication fails inside organizations, the first instinct is often to look for an individual cause. Someone didn’t explain something clearly. Someone missed a step. Someone didn’t “own” the message.

That instinct is understandable—and often wrong.

Most communication breakdowns are not performance problems. They are design problems. They occur when responsibility at one layer of communication is missing, overloaded, or misaligned with the layers around it.

One way to make this visible is to look at communication through five distinct but connected tiers: Structure, Systems, Story, Strategy, and Stewardship. These tiers exist in every organization, whether they are named or not. When one tier weakens, communication begins to wobble elsewhere.

What follows is not an assessment, but a set of diagnostic questions. The goal is not to judge performance, but to locate where communication is carrying weight it was never designed to hold.

If Structure Is Weak, Communication Feels Chaotic

When structure is unclear, communication becomes reactive.

People are unsure who owns what. Decisions are revisited multiple times. Messages change depending on who delivers them. Work gets done, but it feels harder than it should.

This often shows up as:

• unclear roles around who approves or sends communication

• duplicated effort across teams

• last-minute requests framed as emergencies

In these environments, communicators are asked to “just make it work” without clear authority or boundaries. No amount of skill can compensate for missing structure. Communication cannot stabilize until ownership and expectations are clarified.

If Systems Are Weak, Communication Relies on Memory and Goodwill

When systems are underdeveloped, communication depends on individual effort.

Processes live in people’s heads. Timelines shift without warning. Work is repeated because nothing is documented or standardized. The organization functions, but only because a few people hold everything together.

This often shows up as:

• inconsistent workflows

• missed handoffs

• burnout concentrated in the same roles

Here, communication isn’t failing because people don’t care. It’s failing because there is no reliable way for the work to move. Systems don’t remove judgment; they protect it by reducing unnecessary friction.

If Story Is Weak, Communication Sounds Correct but Feels Empty

When story is missing or misaligned, communication loses meaning.

Messages are technically accurate, but people don’t understand why they matter. Leaders explain decisions, but the explanation doesn’t connect to lived experience. Employees fill in the gaps with assumptions.

This often shows up as:

• repeated questions after announcements

• resistance framed as “confusion”

• disengagement that leadership can’t quite name

Story is not embellishment. It is how people make sense of change, priorities, and values. Without it, communication may circulate—but it doesn’t land.

If Strategy Is Weak, Communication Becomes Noisy

When strategy is unclear, communication lacks direction.

Everything feels urgent. Too many messages compete for attention. Priorities shift without explanation. Communicators are asked to execute without understanding tradeoffs.

This often shows up as:

• over-communication without clarity

• reactive messaging

• difficulty saying no

At this layer, communication problems are often mistaken for volume problems. In reality, they are judgment problems. Strategy is what determines what not to say, as much as what to say.

If Stewardship Is Weak, Communication Erodes Trust Over Time

When stewardship is absent, communication may work in the short term but fail in the long term.

Messages get results, but at a cost. People feel managed rather than led. Values are stated, but not consistently reinforced. Power is exercised without reflection.

This often shows up as:

• cynicism toward leadership communication

• high turnover in key roles

• culture that contradicts stated values

Stewardship is not about tone policing. It is about accountability. It asks whether communication choices today support the kind of organization leadership claims to be building.

Seeing the Work Clearly

These layers are not hierarchical in the sense of rank. They are interdependent. Strong story cannot compensate for missing systems. Clear strategy cannot override broken structure. Stewardship without credibility rings hollow.

The value of a layered view is that it shifts the conversation. Instead of asking who failed, it asks where the design failed. Instead of demanding more effort, it invites better alignment.

Communication improves when organizations stop asking individuals to perform work the system does not support.

Making the layers visible is often the first step toward communicating on purpose.

Why This Matters

Communication shapes how people experience leadership, culture, and belonging. When it breaks down, the effects are rarely limited to messaging. They show up in morale, trust, and execution.

A diagnostic approach does not offer quick fixes. It offers clarity. And clarity, in communication, is rarely loud—but it is always powerful.