Whether you’re talking personal relationships or business relationships, communication is always a vital element to anything. That said, when a problem crops up, it’s no surprise that the source is often a lack of communication.
However, not all forms of communication are created equal. So how do we know what works?
Take the ongoing situation in Woodland for example. A lack of communication certainly contributed to the frustrations a number of business owners have over the city’s decision to narrow the industrial street Schurman Way (see today’s Business Extra story “Learning from Schurman Way”). In the article, business owners told us why a narrower road could have a negative impact on business in the area. Furthermore, they said they were not informed about the road project before it was too late to do anything about it.
To say there was zero communication between the city of Woodland and its business community concerning the Schurman Way project would simply be untrue.
Chuck Blum, Woodland’s mayor, pointed out why.
“The city posts a public hearing on its transportation element,” explained Blum. “You can probably count on one hand, even in the city of Vancouver, how many people show up to these things. Then the first thing out of a business owner or resident’s mouth is, ‘We weren’t being told what’s going on.’ Well, yes you were. By law we have to and there is nothing secret.”
There is your communication element. But did a public hearing really go far enough in this case? Even Blum admitted, probably not.
“I don’t totally disagree [with the communication concerns of business owners],” said Blum. “I do believe it is government’s responsibility to inform a little bit better.”
Blum brings up an interesting point when he talks about government’s responsibility to inform. Could concern over following procedure be so up front and center in our minds that the ultimate goal of communication is lost? If the goal is communicating a message and nobody shows up to a public hearing, that goal is not met.
Perhaps the problem with public hearings and meetings is that we have mandated a method of communication that no longer works. If that’s the case, I suggest instead of using the hearing as the tool to communicate an issue, use the issue to promote communication about the hearing.
Again, this brings me to the question of how do we know what works? I believe the answer to these questions comes when we seek feedback after the fact.
Whether you’re talking about a public/private relationship like in Woodland, or a business partnership, we must ask follow-up questions. For example: In what ways did this work for you? How can communication be improved?
When we truly understand where the disconnect occurs, we can improve.
