This article is part of Make It Land, a 5-part series on leadership communication. Each essay explores a different reason why an idea can fail to land with the audience. The pieces stand alone. Together they reflect on a simple leadership discipline: communicating so that ideas are understood, remembered and acted upon.
Leadership Communication Principle:
Email is not where conversations happen. It is where decisions are confirmed.
In March 2009, during the depths of the global financial crisis, American International Group (AIG) was operating under an $182 billion government bailout. The company had been at the centre of the crisis, and public anger was intense.
On March 14, news broke that AIG had paid $165 million in retention bonuses to executives in the Financial Products division—the same unit largely responsible for the losses that had brought the company to the brink of collapse. The bonuses were contractually obligated, determined before the bailout, but the optics were devastating.
AIG CEO Edward Liddy was summoned to testify before Congress. In preparation, he sent an open letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on March 16, 2009. The letter outlined the facts: the bonuses were legally binding, originated from contracts signed in early 2008, and retention was deemed necessary to wind down complex derivative positions.
The letter was factually accurate. It was legally defensible. Public trust shattered nonetheless.
Liddy later testified before the House Financial Services Committee, where he faced intense questioning. In his oral testimony, he acknowledged that the bonuses were “distasteful” and committed to asking recipients to return at least half. He expressed understanding of public anger. The conversation allowed nuance that the written letter did not convey.
Written communication creates distance. Sometimes that distance is useful. Sometimes it is fatal.
When Writing Works:
Email is not inherently inadequate. It is simply specific in what it does well.
Writing works when:
- The decision has already been made
- The message is informational and unambiguous
- A record is needed
- Consistency across many recipients matters
- Time zones or geography prevent synchronous communication
In these contexts, clarity and structure become paramount. But clarity in writing is not the same as clarity in speech. Written communication must work without tone, without immediate clarification and without the ability to adjust based on the recipient’s reaction.
The Anatomy of Actionable Writing
Research on organizational communication has identified structural elements that increase the likelihood that written communication will drive action rather than create confusion.
In their analysis of effective business communication, researchers Barbara Shwom and Lisa Snyder identified several principles that distinguish messages that land from those that circulate without impact:
- Lead with the action or decision
Most organizational emails bury the ask. Background comes first. Context is explained. Justification is provided. Eventually, somewhere in paragraph four, the actual request appears.
This structure follows the writer’s thought process, not the reader’s need. Readers scan. They decide within seconds whether to engage deeply or move on. If the point is not visible immediately, many never find it.
Effective structure inverts this pattern:
- Subject line states the decision or request
- First sentence clarifies what is needed and by when
- Body provides context for those who need it
- Close repeats the action and accountability
- Use active voice to assign ownership
Passive voice obscures accountability. It allows decisions to appear as if they happened rather than were made.
Compare:
- “A decision was made to delay the product launch.”
- “The executive team decided to delay the product launch.”
The first sentence hides agency. The second makes clear who is accountable.
In a 2011 study published in Management Communication Quarterly, researchers found that organizational emails using passive voice were significantly more likely to be perceived as evasive or lacking accountability, even when the content was identical to active-voice versions.
If you cannot name who is responsible, the communication is incomplete.
- Structure for scanning
Most organizational emails are not read. They are scanned. Visual hierarchy determines what gets noticed.
Effective emails use:
- Bolded headings to break up text
- Bullet points to make lists scannable
- White space to reduce cognitive load
- Short paragraphs (three sentences maximum)
The goal is to make depth accessible to those who need it without forcing everyone to read everything.
- Separate decision from discussion
One common failure in written communication is conflating announcement with consultation. The writer wants feedback but frames the message as if the decision is already made. Or the writer presents a decision but invites so much discussion that recipients are unclear whether they have agency to influence the outcome.
Clarity requires separating these modes.
- If you are announcing: Be clear that the decision is made. Explain the rationale. Outline next steps. Invite questions for understanding, not for reversal
- If you are consulting: Be explicit about what is open for input and what is not. Set a deadline for feedback. Explain how input will be used
- If you are aligning: Frame the issue as a question.
Ambiguity about which mode you are in creates confusion, resentment and wasted effort.
When Writing Fails
Writing fails when the message requires:
- Emotional nuance that tone conveys
- Immediate back-and-forth to clarify misunderstanding
- Trust-building that presence supports
- Buy-in that conversation creates
In these cases, writing is avoidance rather than efficiency.
The 2010 book Crucial Conversations by Kerry Patterson and colleagues describes how high-stakes conversations require dialogue. Email allows leaders to avoid seeing the impact of their words. That avoidance comes at a cost. When leadership default to email for these moments, they trade short-term comfort for long-term damage.
The AIG Lesson
Edward Liddy’s letter to Treasury Secretary Geithner was inadequate. The facts were accurate, but the medium could not carry the weight of what the moment required. His later testimony before Congress was more effective because the format allowed him to respond, acknowledge emotion and signal accountability in real time.
Writing has power of record, of clarity and of reach. It is not the power of connection, empathy or trust-building under pressure. Leadership requires knowing which power the moment needs.
A Question for Reflection
Before you send your next significant email, ask:
- If they only read the subject line and first sentence, would they know what I need?
- Am I using this medium because it serves the message, or because it protects me from the conversation?
- Does this message need a record, or does it need a relationship?
Writing is a tool that works best when matched precisely to what the message requires.
References
Liddy EM. (2009, March 16). [Letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner regarding AIG retention payments]. Available from: https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/031809aigliddy.pdf
Patterson K, Grenny J, McMillan R, Switzler A. (2011). Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill.
Shwom B, Snyder LG. (2012). Business Communication: Polishing Your Professional Presence. 2nd ed. Pearson.
Suchan J, Hayzak G. (2001). The communication characteristics of virtual teams: A case study. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. 44(3):174-186.
US House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services. (2009, March 18). Hearing on AIG: "A.I.G.: Where Is the Taxpayers' Money?" 111th Congress, 1st Session.
Waldeck JH, Seibold DR, Flanagin AJ. (2004). Organizational assimilation and communication technology use. Communication Monographs. 71(2):161-183.