The Communication Equation

Reaching a conclusion is always comforting.  As I reflect on the importance of communication on global teams, I'm comforted to know that I've identified a model for global communication that enables me to assess a current team, make necessary and appropriate adjustments, and achieve higher results. 

Of course as an engineer, I have the luxury of reducing complex human interactions to mathematical relationships.  In no way does this minimize the need to continuously assess oneself and one's team to ensure that personal and professional growth lead to better one-on-one interaction.  What I aim to do is to standardize a workplace reality in a way that allows leaders to look at the teams they have and make them better.

My first post on this topic looked at the impact of geography and language diversity on the results of a team.  The second focused on the impact of leadership. My aim now is to tie these concepts together into a model that senior leaders can use to assess and improve communication in their organizations.

The results achieved in a given organizational unit (a project, functional team, plant, etc.) is the product of the accuracy of the communication (exponentially amplified or attenuated by the leadership of the organizational unit) and the specificity of the topic.  Specificity is a new variable that I've not previously discussed, and is different from accuracy in this context.  Accuracy relates to the mechanics of communication, including time differences and language barriers.  Specificity is the scope of the topic.  The broader the topic, the more specificity matters.  If the topic will only impact one project, this is different than a policy change that will impact multiple global working locations.  A broader topic will lower results unless the accuracy and leadership compensate:

As a recap: A = Accuracy, L = Leadership ratio, S  = Specificity. You can learn more about the variables comprising Accuracy in my prior post on this topic.

In the end, organizational leaders are obligated to identify and use a leadership model, determine what global footprint they want and how that helps/hurts, and control specificity to optimize organizational communication. 

What do you think?  Is this math valid?  Do you see this model in your own organization?  Are there other variables that significantly impact results?  Comments are always welcome and I look forward to hearing from you about the communication (or lack thereof) you see in your workplace.