Outcome Based Communication
Lets cut to the chase
Let me follow my own advice and cut straight to it:
Outcomes-based communication means focusing the conversation on the desired outcome, not the process of how to achieve it.
This approach is foundational when you’re collaborating with different people, departments, or disciplines. When it’s neglected, collaboration doesn’t just slow down—it can break down completely.
In this article, I’ll explore a few common scenarios where that breakdown happens, and how to prevent it.
My “aha” moment
Here’s the moment it clicked for me—my “aha” moment, or as Stephen Covey ( The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People ) would call it: a paradigm shift.
Many years ago, I was a young sound engineer booked to mix a Fleetwood Mac cover band. Leading up to the gig, I diligently listened to the Rumours album on repeat for a week. I studied the sonic signatures that made Fleetwood Mac Fleetwood Mac: the snare tone from the bottom mic, the vocal EQ, the harmony balance, the breathy effects—I knew it back to front.
Soundcheck arrived, and I started dialling in my authentic Fleetwood Mac mix. I was stoked. The crew around me were commenting that it sounded just like the album. “How good is this cover band?!”
Then something unexpected happened.
The band started yelling mix changes from stage:
“More bass in the vocals!”
“Less snare!”
“More kick drum!”
None of those requests were in keeping with the classic Fleetwood Mac sound. I obliged a few changes… and as I did, the mix started sounding less and less like Fleetwood Mac. The crew began joking: “Have these guys ever listened to the original?”
So I stopped listening to their requests.
They were wrong. I was right. This isn’t how you mix a Fleetwood Mac show—and I was nailing it with my “how-to”.
After the gig, the band became a running joke in the office: “that cover band who’d never heard the original.”
About two years later, a friend of mine was booked to mix that same band. We all joked about sending them a copy of Rumours beforehand to get them up to speed.
My friend called me after the show. This time, everything was different.
The band had hired a manager. Before soundcheck, the manager walked up to my mate and said one sentence that changed everything:
“The band doesn’t want to sound like the original album. They want to sound like these songs were written and recorded today. Give it a modern sound.”
Suddenly every “how-to” the band had yelled at me from stage made perfect sense.
The “how-to” wasn’t the problem. The band’s requests weren’t wrong.
They just hadn’t communicated the outcome.
And once the outcome was clear, the sound engineer was empowered to achieve it—using skill, taste, and experience to work towards a common goal.
People think differently
Ever tried to collaborate in a team to produce a creative production? Theme an event? Purchase or hire an AV system to fulfil a creative need?
As sure as the production guy is wearing a black T-shirt, you’ve encountered differing opinions, differing priorities, and maybe a few unpleasant communication breakdowns.
This isn’t limited to project work either. Communication breakdowns happen in every type of organisation at every level.
But if you really want to see the breakdown at its finest, put a creative, a technical person, and a business manager in the same room. If they walked into a bar it could be the start of a great joke.
“Mate, that combination of people is my everyday life.”
“This is my worst nightmare.”
“Yes. I hear you.”
The purpose of this article is to help those three groups speak a common language, so they can work together toward a common outcome.
We often assume conflict comes down to attitude—teamwork, flexibility, egos, singing kumbaya around a campfire.
I’m going to challenge that.
Some of the biggest blow-ups I’ve seen in planning meetings happened when everyone in the room was genuinely passionate about achieving something amazing. They could not have been more aligned in intent.
The core issue was this:
Each person was focused on the “how-to”, instead of focusing on the outcome.
To paint the picture, I’m going to use simplified “archetypes”. Not labels. Not stereotypes. Just patterns we commonly see.
The Tech
The technician: AV, IT, engineers—anyone technically minded. To summarise: the cast of The Big Bang Theory. People who often see the world in black and white: can do / can’t do. There’s a best way to do things, and anything short of “best” feels flawed.
A few things to understand about techs:
They don’t wake up with a goal of spending all your money.
And they don’t set out to shut down creative ideas.
But they often operate with an unspoken definition of “best”.
Without parameters, “best” usually means: an engineering masterpiece. Powerful system. Plenty of features. Redundancy. Room for expansion.
What may not naturally enter the thinking—unless it’s part of the brief—is budget and usability for non-technical users.
This is where collaboration often falls over.
In a creative space, the tech’s black-and-white thinking can feel like opposition. Creatives often feel pressure to bring the “how-to” with their idea: “If I show them my plan, they’ll accept it.”
But that approach can work against you.
Remember: black and white. Only the best way. Anything short of perfection is flawed.
So you might bring a plan that’s 90% correct—or even 95% of the way there—but to the tech, 95 isn’t 100.
To quote Raymond Calitri in Gone in 60 Seconds:
“I said fifty. Not forty-nine and a half.”
That last 5% gap becomes the entire conversation. The creative masterpiece gets reduced to: “can’t do.”
Business leaders can fall into a similar trap from the opposite direction: they bring an oversimplified brief. “We want it to do X and Y.” But the system also needs to do Z—and suddenly that simple system becomes T, U, V, W, X, Y and the most amazing Z you’ve ever seen.
Briefs need to be a collaboration.
To reference Stephen Covey again:
“Seek first to understand, then to be understood.”
Yes—collaborating with a tech can feel like opening Pandora’s Box. Like you’re inviting them to blow the brief out of proportion.
But trust me: time spent with the tech early is the best way to reduce long-term pain.
Ask questions about unseen ramifications. Surface what you don’t know early. Create two-way communication about priorities before the project hardens.
Anyone who has asked a tech for a “$10K system” and received a $100K proposal three months later can attest to the importance of defining the brief—and defining “best”—together.
The Business
The business manager, project manager, keeper of the budget. Often not involved in the day-to-day “making it happen”, but responsible for commissioning, approving, and signing off.
The mindset of “The Business” is a stark contrast to the tech.
The Business is big-picture. Driven by task completion, budgets, efficiency, and time. There’s often less joy in the process—and more joy in the completion.
In the bigger picture, the technical system might be just one dot point on a page of twenty. They want to tick the box and move on.
Without oversimplifying: many business decisions get filtered into two categories:
Investment
Expense
While every tech tends to see every system as an investment, The Business takes a more measurable view.
An investment must yield a return equal to or greater than its cost—through savings, reliability, efficiency, risk reduction, or revenue uplift.
If the system doesn’t meet that test, even if it delivers an 80% return… then, sorry:
It’s an expense.
One thing the tech and The Business often share: black-and-white thinking.
When communicating with The Business, remember: they usually don’t need your “how-to”. That’s why they have you. If they’re not interested in your deep technical explanation, it’s not personal—they’re being efficient.
Keep communication high-level and priority-driven. Assume nothing. Invite them to define priorities across the project.
You expect The Business to respect your expertise. Respect theirs when it comes time to set priorities.
Respect must always be mutual.
The Creative
The designer, producer, artist. You can picture them: cool glasses, a fashion statement, and scribbles on every available surface.
In a collaborative environment, the creative often has the hardest task: to create something where there was nothing. Communicate a message. Entertain. Impress. Suspend disbelief—using real-world tools, real-world budgets, and real-world limitations.
Now add collaboration with people who operate in black-and-white, and who want a perfect design before taking the first step.
Fun.
The biggest trap for the creative is the pressure to come with the “how-to”.
But by definition, “creative” means creating something new—something not seen before—pushing boundaries while still balancing what’s actually possible.
So here’s a key point:
Excitement doesn’t translate to a tech.
For creatives, excitement inspires buy-in. For techs, a long preamble can trigger two reactions:
“We’re wasting time.”
“This request is about to be insane.”
So do yourself a favour: cut to the chase.
State the outcome clearly. Let the technical team do what they do best.
And if you are the Tech or The Business, listening to a creative propose a “how-to” that doesn’t seem possible—try this filter:
What are the key elements they’re actually trying to achieve?
Instead of shutting it down, try something like:
“There are challenges with executing that approach, but we could achieve a similar result by doing this… Would that outcome meet your needs?”
The takeaways
Collaboration is powerful. It harnesses collective knowledge and experience to create something greater than the sum of its parts.
But for collaboration to actually occur, you need two things:
A shared commitment to the end result
Space for people to contribute their expertise on how to get there
Working in groups isn’t always easy. Let’s not sugar-coat it.
But the best place to start is simple:
Communicate outcomes, not directives.
You may be surprised what your team is capable of when you stop telling them how—and start aligning them on what.