The difference between “informing“ and actually “communicating“

In many organizations, communication is treated as a straightforward task: share the information, send the message, move on. Once an email is sent, a presentation delivered, or a document published, communication is often considered “done”.

Yet, information shared is not always information understood.

This is where the distinction between informing and communicating becomes important.

Informing focuses on sending, communicating values understanding

Informing focuses on transmission. The goal is to make information available. Communicating focuses on reception. The goal is to ensure meaning is understood.

An organization can inform perfectly – clear language, accurate facts, well-designed slides –and still fail to communicate if the audience does not grasp:

• why the message matters

• how it relates to their role

• or what is expected next.

This gap is common, and it is rarely the result of poor intentions or lack of effort. More often, it reflects how complex modern organizations and environments have become.

Why informing often feels sufficient

Informing produces tangible outputs. Emails are sent, documents are published, presentations are delivered. Communicating, on the other hand, is harder to observe. Understanding happens quietly (or fails quietly) and feedback is often indirect or delayed.

As a result, communication success is sometimes assessed through indicators such as:

• the message being sent

• stakeholders being copied

• clarity of wording.

These elements matter, but they primarily capture activity rather than impact.

When the focus shifts to communication

When communication is approached with understanding as the objective, the nature of the work changes. Attention moves toward questions such as:

• What does the audience need in order to make sense of this?

• Which assumptions may not be shared?

• Where might ambiguity or misinterpretation arise?

This perspective does not automatically lead to more communication. In many cases, it leads to sharper focus, clearer priorities, and fewer messages that compete for attention.

Communication as a leadership tool

Effective communication does not remove complexity. It helps people navigate it. This is why communication is closely linked to leadership. It creates direction, builds coherence, and supports decision-making by:

• emphasizing clarity over volume

• acknowledging uncertainty where it exists

• connecting information to purpose.

When communication works well, people are not only informed. They understand where they stand and how they can contribute.

An opportunity to build on what already exists

The difference between informing and communicating should not be read as a critique of existing practices, but rather as an opportunity to build on them.

Most organizations already invest significant effort in sharing information. Strengthening communication often means building on that foundation – adding context, perspective, and intention so messages land more effectively.

In a landscape shaped by limited attention and growing complexity, communication that truly resonates becomes a strategic asset.

[This article was originally published on LinkedIn].