全球领先的手机制造商在市场中阵脚大乱，艰难地追赶着对手。
一家能源交易公司收益大增，却突然破产倒闭。
一艘豪华邮轮转错了弯，邮轮总公司陷入了水域危机。
极有权势的石油公司负责调查环境污染，却演变成了一场公共关系灾难。
一家航空公司董事会聘用的CEO仅仅三年就被终结了合同。
五大公司，五大问题。这五家公司中，一家为高科技产品制造商，两家属于能源领域，另外两家则经营着客运生意。此外，它们毫不相同，所面临的问题也大相径庭。
情况看起来好像如此，可事实上这些公司失败的核心因素都在于巨大的沟通失效。下面，我们就来深入分析一下这五家公司和各自的问题。
诺基亚：10年来，诺基亚都是全球领先的手机制造商。然而，当智能手机成为移动通讯市场下一个主力军时，诺基亚公司却丧失了竞争优势。为什么诺基亚把好想法付诸于产品是这么地困难呢？一篇针对此问题的深度报道发现大部分原因在于其沟通习惯--偏向无中心的战略讨论而不是为新手机投向市场做出明确的规划。
安然：一项学术调查指出在安然公司内，高级主管未能履行一些“领导的沟通职责”，譬如“沟通恰当的价值观念”和“保持问题征兆的公开性”等，因此导致了该公司的破产倒闭。
公主邮轮：2012年4月，星辰公主号邮轮上的乘客告诉船务人员他们发现了一艘貌似遇难的渔船。但是邮轮并没有停下予以援助，渔船上的两个人因此脱水而死。后来，该公司发表声明，称“在传递乘客关心之事时出现了沟通故障”。
英国石油公司：2010年4月，“深水地平线”海上石油钻井平台发生爆炸，给英国石油公司及其合作伙伴带来了空前的危机。据白宫调查委员会对该事故的调查报告，灾难的主要原因包括了“沟通不善”和未能“分享重要信息”。
泰国国际航空公司：2012年5月，泰国航空公司CEO（首席执行官）Piyasvasti Amranand被辞退，辞退原因让人难以捉摸，毕竟他只任职了短短的三年，而且公司董事会最近对他的年度评价也颇为正面。一家媒体报道公司董事长的解释为“Piyasvasti和董事会之间的沟通问题妨碍了公司的利润增长”。
我们并不是随机或是煞费苦心地选取了这些例子。即使粗略地调查下，便可发现知名公司的失败多是这种模式。翻看日报的商业板块或是搜索商业新闻网站，通常，如果你不察觉的话，实际上你就是在阅读沟通研究领域的案例记录。
每个领导者都很清楚金融管理松散的后果，大部分领导者也都认识到了人事管理的利害。但是有多少领导者能意识到沟通管理松散，不能很好地管理公司内部想法和信息流通的危害呢？
那些能够有效地管理公司内信息流通的领导者都具备某种特定的观点和处事方法。他们会采取更接近员工的沟通方式，建立能够促进对话，反对一人独白的沟通系统，鼓励员工积极加入到沟通过程中，尽力按照议程使沟通与公司策略相匹配，制定奖赏制度，确保员工互相交谈，而不是仅仅互相闲聊。
A leading mobile-phone maker falls out of step with its market — and struggles to catch up.
An energy-trading company rises high — and then suddenly implodes.
A luxury cruise ship takes a wrong turn — and the parent cruise-line company finds itself on troubled waters.
A mighty oil company presides over an environmental disaster — one that spills over to become a PR disaster as well.
The board of an airline hires a CEO — and then cancels his contract after just three years.
Five big companies. Five big problems. One of these companies is a high-tech manufacturer, two of them are in the energy sector, and two of them are in the consumer transport business. Otherwise, they have almost nothing in common. The problems that each company has faced vary widely, too.
Or so it might seem. In fact, each of these cases of organizational failure involves — right at the crux of the matter — a grievous lapse in communication. Let's look further at these five companies and their problems.
Nokia: For more than a decade, Nokia was the world's largest mobile-phone manufacturer. But when the smartphone became the next big thing within the mobility market, the company lost its competitive edge. According to an in-depth account of why Nokia has "struggle[d] to turn its good ideas into products," much of the problem stems from habits of communication that favor unfocused discussions about strategy over clear plans to bring new phone models to market.
Enron: A scholarly investigation into the problems that led to Enron's collapse pinpointed several "communication-based leader responsibilities" that senior managers failed to meet — responsibilities such as "communicating appropriate values" and "maintaining openness to signs of problems."
Star Princess Cruise Lines: In April 2012, passengers on the cruise ship Star Princess told members of the ship's crew that they had spotted a fishing boat that showed signs of being in distress. Yet the ship didn't stop to provide aid, and two people on the fishing boat later died of dehydration. Later, the cruise-line company issued a statement that cited a "breakdown in communication in relaying the passengers' concern."
British Petroleum: The blowout of the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig, in April 2010, resulted in a massive crisis for BP and its partners. Among the key factors that contributed to the disaster were "poor communications" and a failure "to share important information," according to a report on the White House commission that studied the incident.
Thai Airways: When Piyasvasti Amranand lost his job as CEO of Thai Air, in May 2012, the reason for his dismissal was somewhat elusive. After all, he had held the post for a mere three years, and the company's board had recently given him a positive annual review. According to one media report, however, the chairman of the airline said that "communication problems between Piyasvasti and the board were hampering the company's effort to meet [its] profit target."
We didn't select these examples entirely at random. But neither did we work very hard to find them. Even a cursory survey of high-profile organizational failures will turn up numerous stories that fit the same pattern. Thumb through the business pages of your daily newspaper. Or browse the virtual pages of a business news Web site. Very often, if you didn't know better, it would be easy to conclude that you were reading case notes from the field of communication studies.
Every leader keenly understands the consequences of taking a lax approach to financial management. And most leaders today recognize how dangerous it can be to take a lax approach to people management. But how many leaders appreciate the risks that come with taking a lax approach to communication management — with failing to manage the way that ideas and information flows within their organization?
Those leaders who do effectively manage the flow of information within their company tend to share a certain outlook — and a certain set of practices. They adopt communication methods that enable them to get closer to employees. They put in place communication systems that promote dialogue, as opposed to monologue. They engage employees by allowing them to become active participants in the communication process. They rigorously pursue an agenda that aligns their communication efforts with organizational strategy.
They put a premium on ensuring that people in their organization talk with each other, and not just to each other.
