PM is een adviesbureau gespecialiseerd in crisisbeheersing, risicocommunicatie en begeleiding bij complexe veranderingen.
Door het organiseren van oefeningen en opleidingen op maat brengt ons team kennis en advies ook naar de praktijk.
Als gedreven team ondersteunen we onze klanten met 24/7 permanentie crisisadvies
Ons boek Geen Commentaar! Communicatie in turbulente tijden is verkrijgbaar in de betere boekhandel.
For years, organisations have been searching for the most appropriate form of communication. The aim of such an organisational communication is to influence the receivers’ perception to confirm, adapt or change behaviour according to the senders’ intention.
There is not one way to communicate. It widely depends on the nature and the objectives of the communication.
For example, when you just address your personnel about a modification in the opening hours of the company restaurant or the availability of the tennis court, you will act in a very simple way. Your objective is to inform people about a mere factual matter with a quite restricted impact on the life of the organisation and the individual and for which you should not expect any (major) discussion. In this case a very simple one-way communication model will thus be adequate and you will use simple and adapted means: posters and general e-mailing to reinforce the basic communication will be enough to achieve your objective.
However, if you are about to initiate a major change in the company structure or strategy, you do not have the same objectives and the same expectations: the way you are going to regard your communication strategy and the means you are going to use will thus be completely different. Your objective will be to influence behaviours and trigger a result.
Early theories on communication are mainly based on a mathematical process, whereas the transfer of information is the key objective: a source produces a piece of information, which is received by a recipient.
This requires encoding (a text or an announcement has to be written first) and decoding of the information (the receiver of the information has to read or listen to the message and interpret it). Another key element of this model is ‘noise-source’, that is to say any interference, any unintended element added to the original information. However, the main challenge is to transmit the information as exactly as possible.
In combination with this model, other researchers also stressed the importance of the feedback and even a feedforward. In other words, just check if your message has been correctly received, and evaluate the reactions of the receivers. Or even better, know, before you communicate, what the expectations of the receivers will be in view of the general context and the specific topic you are going to communicate about.
Basically, this mathematical model has been the prevailing corporate communication theory where communication is only an instrument supporting the achievement of a company’s goals by just sending out messages and making sure that the receiver gets all the information as clearly as possible. That means that the focus widely remains on the message and the sender’s views and intentions - not on the receiver’s perception. Even in the best situation, the receiver is only taken into account to improve the efficiency of the message.
There are three major obstacles to the main objectives of traditional communication strategies.
The first one is that a receiver rarely gets one single message concerning one topic from one unique and reliable source; he or she receives messages from different sources. As the prevailing communication strategies are based on research carried out in a clinical-like environment where single message communication was tested, it makes most of those communication strategies obsolete.
The second obstacle is a different way of regarding the receivers’ perception: most organisational communication theories are based on the assumption that receivers process information in a rational way while research in neurobiology indicates that rationality is dominated by emotions.
Finally, the third obstacle is that each individual in an organisation refers to his own background, his own personal experience to process information and construct perceptions that are not necessarily in line with the objectives of the sender’s communication.
In recent years, new trends in managerial thinking have gradually introduced a different view of corporate communication as a genuine management instrument, where mere one-way communication is no longer regarded as efficient.
Taking the limitations of the traditional communication models into account, you have to realise that a rather complex and impactful communication needs a different approach.
While the classic management approach is still widely regarded as transferring information from management to internal and external target groups, possibly improved by a facilitating process aimed at a motivation and a shared understanding of the company’s objectives (collective ownership), a trend has emerged in the last few years which focuses on people’s engagement in co-construction. In other words: you take people ‘on board’ and have them participate in the process, through and with the support of communication. The role of the entire management layer is therefore key in achieving this objective.
In addition to this new managerial trend, many influences emerging from various researchers in the fields of sociology, psychology and even biology have brought a new insight into the way communication and management skills actually influence our decision-making or how individuals ‘fully make sense’ of information (see “Sensemaking” below).
The perception of the receiver is influenced by various elements; the general context (society), the particular context (company, organisation) and the personal context (specific mental frame) of the receiver at a given time. All these elements will result in a different meaning for each individual and will contribute to create a different perception. The way information will ‘make sense’ for each individual is very personal. Therefore you cannot expect the same perception of your communication for each and every individual, even if they live in the same general and (why not) the same particular context. What can be received very positively by one person can sound very negative for another.
Sensemaking is about how someone acts, based on a retrospective interpretation of past experiences and on assumptions about the future. It is based on two key questions: “what’s going on here?” and “what do I do next?” These questions can be captured in four phases of the sensemaking process, i.e. scanning, interpretation, action, and performance.
When one scans information, which is the first step of sensemaking, one searches for clues to connect the abstract with something familiar; a past experience, or simply some tacit knowledge. One will use his/her own mental model, his/her own experience to decode the information. And this, of course, does not necessarily have anything to do with a strict rational analysis. Emotions will take the lead. And if your first emotion immediately brings you back to a very negative experience, the way you are going to process the information will influence the whole process of sensemaking.
This scanning leads to the next phase: interpretation, which is the development or application of ways of comprehending the meaning of information. Based on the scanning and the subsequent interpretation of the obtained information, there is a response in action that will lead to an outcome or performance.
The importance of perception is a constant variable throughout the managerial and communication process: the way the communication strategy will be analysed and designed, the choice of appropriate means and channels, the way you are going to get constant feedback from the very beginning of the process will have a crucial impact on the expected outcome. Your strategic choices and your interpersonal skills will heavily influence the impact and success of your communication.
Even if it sounds obvious that the general (society) and the particular context (organisation) are usually taken into account, the particular context for a given group or individuals is quite another challenge: how do individuals make sense of information and how can the manager correctly analyse it? Or how can a manager communicate in such a way that people react constructively?
When we talk about communication, the best example is a personal briefing or a collective meeting: let us just forget about strategy and means and focus on the way a manager communicates directly with an employee.
Manager to John: That project has not brought the expected outcome. How can you explain this?
John: Well, ehm... I don’t know. Well, ... I mean, we did our best but from the outset the technical division did not collaborate with us.
Manager: And why didn’t you get their collaboration?
John: I don’t know. Anyway, I think our request was clear enough but they didn’t regard our project as a priority.
Manager: Ok, you’re the department head, it’s your responsibility to get other departments to collaborate.
John: Well, you’re right but I just expected the same attitude from my colleagues from the start, they have always been quite negative towards the project, you know.
...
Same project, other questioning:
Manager: Tell me John, what do you consider positive aspects in this project up to now?
John: Well, the collaboration with department X has been pretty good. I think we definitely improved our efficiency compared to other projects.
Manager: Why do you think this has been a success with department X?
John: We had a good meeting with all the people involved in the department and we drew up several interesting best practices that have helped us avoid some mistakes.
Manager: How do you think we could use this experience in our global process?
John: We could certainly do the same with all the departments involved in the project. We couldn’t do it with the technical department and it actually went wrong in some way with them.
Manager: Do you think it will allow you to improve your collaboration with the technical department?
These small pieces of conversation can lead us to some interesting observations.
The way the manager is questioning John is completely different. In the first example, the manager focuses on mistakes, on the negative aspect of the project. In the second example, he first tries to get feedback from the project focussing on the positive part. You see how differently the conversation develops. This tends to demonstrate that the way you ask questions will influence the answers you get. When you focus on flaws, failures, negative points, the individual you are addressing also sticks to negative issues and goes into defensive mode. Moreover, if he is overwhelmed by bad experiences and connects them to negative fall-outs, this will prevent his brain from adopting a constructive attitude.
On the other hand, if you appeal to his positive experiences, the person you are speaking to will adopt a constructive approach more easily. His immediate emotions will connect him with very positive personal experiences and easily bring him into a mindset where he can be constructive. That is what some researchers in the field of management call a ‘no-blame, no-shame culture’.
It is obvious that the way you communicate depends largely on the topic you have to communicate. The choice of your communication means and channels and the general strategy will be founded on the following key elements:
You first have to recognise your purpose: there is a difference between you and the audience that you'd like to resolve in a specific way. Ask yourself:You can create an inauthentic ethos, but unless you're a great actor, it's hard to disguise yourself. Once an audience senses you're faking it, you have little chance of convincing them of anything (except that you're untrustworthy!).
You have many means of persuading an audience. But if you aren't sure of what you're trying to do, who you're trying to persuade, and how you can use the persuasive resources available in the situation, the media won't matter.
Communication often demands another way of thinking far beyond the sender/receiver model and the classical approach of communication as a mere tool to transfer information.
As far as the objective is to bring everybody ‘on board’ (for instance in a change process) you will have to take other elements into account. Even if they are important, means and communication channels are only a small part of a communication strategy.
There has been a trend for years to consider that communication is management, that communication is part of the strategy, and that communication is strategy.
Beyond strategy, the way a manager brings his or her interpersonal skills into play to communicate directly with his or her team will also widely influence the impact of his/her communication in taking into account the importance of listening, making sense of what he/she gets in return and acting in a way that will allow him/her to get good and honest feedback and real commitment from his/her team.
The way you ask questions has an immediate impact on the team member sitting in front of you. Asking positive questions, carefully listening to the answers, and not always trying to impose your views will tend to install the receiver in a positive mindset.
In the end, effective managerial communication will actively contribute to achieving the Organisation’s goals as well as ensure the staff’s well-being and satisfaction at the workplace, and hence the employees’ motivation and buy-in.