People Do Not Need More Emails
The three-part system that helps messages actually land.
Most leaders do not have a communication volume problem. They have a communication design problem. The message may be sound, but if the format does not fit how people actually absorb, retain, and act on information, it will still fail to land.
That is the core idea here: internal communication is too often built around the communicator’s habits rather than the audience’s needs. In an age of constant change, that is no longer good enough.
The real problem
I hear this all the time: ‘We keep telling people, and they still do not know.’ Leaders send emails, hold town halls, publish updates, and still discover months later that key decisions have not been understood. That is usually treated as a volume issue, but volume is only part of the story.
A more useful way to look at it is through channel misalignment. In the transcript, the point is made that people are often overwhelmed less by the amount of information than by the fact that it arrives in the wrong format for the way they work and learn. That is a leadership issue, not an admin issue.
Why format matters
The argument for multimedia communication is not about chasing trends or pretending every message belongs on video. It is about acknowledging how people learn. The transcript draws on multimedia learning research, including Richard Mayer’s work, to make a simple point: people generally understand more effectively when words and visuals work together, rather than words alone.
It also makes a practical point about cognitive load. A long, dense document might contain all the necessary detail, but still fail to help people make sense of what has changed and what they are meant to do next. Information is not understanding. A good leader has to design for comprehension, not merely transmission.
A three-tier model
The most useful part of the transcript is the three-tier model: awareness, understanding, and reference.
Awareness is the quick signal. It is the short, direct message that tells people something matters and they should pay attention.
Understanding is the fuller explanation, often best delivered through walkthroughs, conversations, or longer video.
Reference is the durable record, the document people can return to when they need precision, governance, or searchability.
That sequence matters. A short video can create awareness, a walkthrough can build understanding, and a written guide can provide reference. They are not competing formats. They are different jobs in the same communication system.
The short video debate
The transcript handles the short-form video debate well. Yes, there is real concern about endless scrolling, attention fragmentation, and the effects of heavy consumer short-video use. The cited research links higher levels of short-form video use with poorer attention and reduced inhibitory control. That concern should not be waved away.
But workplace communication is not the same thing as algorithmic entertainment. A 60-second internal update with a clear purpose and a defined next step is not an infinite feed designed to keep people hooked. Used well, short video is not a distraction mechanism. It is a precision tool.
What leaders should do
The practical shift is simple, but it requires discipline. For each important message, ask what job it needs to do, who it is for, and what format will help them absorb and act on it. Then choose deliberately.
That means some messages should be a short camera-to-camera update from a leader. Some should be a longer walkthrough or podcast. Some should be a written guide or process map. The mistake is using the same format for everything simply because it is familiar.
This is also where leadership modelling matters. If senior leaders are willing to record short, direct updates, they make the format feel normal rather than experimental. That sends a stronger signal than another polished memo ever will.
The coaching lens
For coaches, this is a rich issue because it exposes pattern, not just process. A useful question is whether a leader’s communication choices serve the audience or their own comfort. Another is whether the organisation is confusing professionalism with formality.
I would also look for hidden bias in format preferences. Some leaders default to written documents because that suits them. Others rely on meetings and assume that is enough. In both cases, the real issue is usually the same: they are choosing what is easiest to produce, not what is easiest to receive.
Final thought
The most important shift is from broadcast to design. Once you see communication that way, you stop asking, ‘Have we said it?’ and start asking, ‘Have we made it possible for people to understand it?’ That is a much better leadership question.
Until next time, keep leading, keep learning, and keep levelling up!
Follow on LinkedIn - Spotify - YouTube - Apple