Lost in Transmission: Why Relying Only on Written Communication Risks Clarity and Safety

In today’s fast-paced world, we send more messages - but understand less.

Whether it’s a WhatsApp from a coach, a safety note in aviation, or an email to your boss, written communication is efficient… until it isn’t.

Without tone, context, or instant feedback, even well-intentioned messages can cause confusion, mistrust, or worse - critical mistakes. In high-stakes environments, relying solely on written communication isn’t just risky - it’s reckless.

The Illusion of Clarity: Why Written Communication Feels Safer Than It Is

Written communication gives us a comforting sense of control. We can edit, revise, and document our thoughts. But that very control can create the illusion of clarity. Just because a message is clear to the sender doesn’t mean it’s received as intended. In safety-critical settings like aviation, assuming a message has been understood without confirmation can be dangerous.

I was recently delivering some Human Factors training, and we came onto a discussion around communication. One person offered that when they read 'as per my last email', they read it in a passive-aggressive tone and formulate an opinion on the person that's less than positive. Conversely, the person sat to their left said they would read that as if they missed something in the last email and read back the chain. Five words, received in two completely different ways.

When the goal of communication is for a message to be received the way the sender intends, who's right?

What Gets Lost: Context, Tone, and Non-Verbal Cues

Our brains process communication as more than words. Tone, facial expression, pacing - these non-verbal elements make up over 90% of how meaning is conveyed. Written communication strips that away. A short message meant to be efficient may come across as abrupt or dismissive.

Consider an engineer who sends a text saying, "Check fuel valves." Is that a reminder, a warning, or an urgent command? The difference matters.

Why High-Performance Teams Default to Voice or Face-to-Face

Aviation crews conduct verbal briefings before every flight. Elite sports teams huddle. Emergency services run through live protocols. Why? Because in dynamic, high-stakes environments, communication must be:

• Two-way

• Confirmable

• Emotionally attuned

  
  

Written memos might supplement the process, but they don’t replace the human interaction needed to align teams.

When to Write, When to Speak: A Practical Communication Framework

Use this simple framework:

• Write when you need documentation, reference, or asynchronous sharing.

• Speak when clarity, emotion, and feedback are critical.

• Combine when the message is complex: speak first, then follow up in writing.

  
  

Ask yourself: Could this be misinterpreted? Would a 60-second conversation prevent a 6-hour problem?

Building a Culture That Encourages Clarification, Not Assumption

The issue isn’t written communication itself. It’s assuming that once a message is sent, it’s been understood. Great leaders and coaches embed a culture of checking in, asking questions, and seeking feedback.

In safety-critical industries, that means:

• Encouraging questions, not punishing them

• Normalising verbal clarification

• Creating time for debriefs, not just dispatches

  
  

Final Approach: Make Communication a Safety System, Not a Shortcut

Clear communication isn’t a nice-to-have. It’s a performance tool and a safety system. Relying only on written words can cost trust, performance, and even lives.

So the next time you’re about to hit ‘send,’ pause and ask:

Would a conversation serve this better?

Because what gets lost in transmission can cost more than you think.