Any office is only as good as its front line receptionists and administrative assistants.  Because of them, some communications never make it to the person they’re supposed to reach.  In some offices instructions are given that those who are high up don’t want to be bothered by trivia.  But, consider those who decide which clients are worthy of a call-back.  Certain employees might not be gifted at assessing this. 

When you suspect your messages might not be making their way to the person you’re trying to reach, or nothing seems to be happening, solutions might include:

1.  Showing up at the office in person, to see face-to-face what’s happening—if anything.
2.  Finding other ways to make direct contact (like in an out-of-the-office setting, or through a home number).
3.  Informing and getting others involved (like peers, colleagues, friends, or media).

Of course, the solution choosen will depend on the size and nature of the office involved—and why the initial approach was made.  If the office is smaller and private, access will probably be easier.  If the office is larger and public, access will probably be more complicated.  Then there are the offices of public officials where specific protocols/accountability are supposed to matter.

Regardless of the type of office being dealt with, or the role of the individual who’s unreachable, keeping calm and trying to stay focused on the initial request (not newly associated frustrations) is important.  In the beginning, follow instructions in accord with an office’s requirements.  Then, if there’s no response, consider there could be something wrong internally.  Look at possible solutions (like those listed above).  Finally, if the office (and employees working in it) are committing misdemeanors, let this be known to the necessary authorities, legislators, or publicists—like (disciplinary) associations, the police, and the media.  Avoid any/further confrontation with staffers who have already shown themselves to be incapable or powerless.

Do keep in mind that everyone makes mistakes—has bad days and weeks, even months. However, during the waiting period, the one who is dissatisfied isn’t getting paid for the time and energy put into contacting and recontacting.  The one who is at fault in not passing on the message /following through appropriately is.  

No one wants anyone else to lose their job unnecessarily.  But, employers need to decide who enhances their organization’s reputation and who detracts from it.  Since quality staff are hard to find, decisions can’t be made flippantly.  So, are expectations for lower paid, more menial workers (that are often scape-goated) too high?  Some get lazy, even if they love or need their job’s benefits.  Then there’s the one who’s a little too smug, whom you’d least suspect of being the problem, until she’s dismissed—productivity and client satisfaction suddenly improving.

Lastly, let’s talk about bosses for a moment.  Office staff may only be as good as the one who’s in charge of them—and the one in charge of them might be the only one able to do "damage control" properly. Also, consider the example he might set when he’s there (with respect to efficiency, punctuality, organizational and people skills).  Does he practice what he preaches?  Can he be counted on? 

If a boss is frequently absent and/or extremely busy, he has to hope that he has a staff that have his organization’s better interests in mind—that they can make smart decisions when he’s absent.  This may be where some of the biggest (and needless) difficulties (and loss of business) arise.