82,891
edits
Communication: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''[[Pull communication]]''': information that is accessible to a recipient when the recipient wants it, on the recipient’s terms. A pull tool is (fnarr fnarr) — ahh, self-service — open, convenient, non-time-sensitive, generally interesting information. The [[JC]] is, largely, one giant, existential infernal howl of angst in the shape of a [[pull communication]]. It is designed to be a resource for people in a moment of interest or need. | '''[[Pull communication]]''': information that is accessible to a recipient when the recipient wants it, on the recipient’s terms. A pull tool is (fnarr fnarr) — ahh, self-service — open, convenient, non-time-sensitive, generally interesting information. The [[JC]] is, largely, one giant, existential infernal howl of angst in the shape of a [[pull communication]]. It is designed to be a resource for people in a moment of interest or need. | ||
===Communication of change=== | |||
[[Thought leader]]s like to agonise on [[LinkedIn]] about good ways to communicate and consult on [[change]]. It goes without saying one must announce, consult, conduct Q&A, reassure, give reasoning and generally support ones chicklings throughout the [[change journey]]. | |||
Now you either subscribe to a monarchic model where you are a golden source of inspiration surrounded by the silver and bronze officeholders of executive management, beyond whose gilded perimeters lies a sea of functionary dullitude — in which case what on earth are you asking ''them'' for — or you see your organisation as a network of autonomous experts, continually reacting to the market as they perceive it, and which your job is merely to coordinate — in which case what are you doing trying to change things at all? | |||
It is a rare multinational CEO who is humble enough to adopt the latter approach, so presume the former. Is it better, then, to preannounce, like a magician — with all the attendant preannouncement, consultation, support and reassurance it entails — and if your plan involves widescale redundancies, for example, just how do you plan to reassure the rank and file about that? — or do you implement under the radar and only announce once it is done? | |||
Pre-announcing gives the game away, makes you hostage to fortune, commits you to the first iteration of your plan, and allows the massive slient forces of entropy and resistance that inhabit the upper middle management reaches of your organisation to mobilise against whatever it is you want to do. And mobilise they will. | |||
Just getting on with it unannounced allows you to consult as widely (or narrowly), and with whomsoever, as you need wish, fail, withdraw, iterate, change direction and refine without the glare of publicity and the horned angels of hubris. | |||
And there is a wider point, too: change should be a gradual affair, allowing the organisation by degrees to to shapeshift into a more suitable direction. By keeping the plan quiet and and making the changes gradually and over an extended period it is more likely that they will work. A preannounced, sudden, 20-degree change in direction, even if, and and indeed especially if, foreshadowed by 6-months of consultation, almost certainly won’t. | |||
{{c|Communication}} | {{c|Communication}} | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Client outreach]] | *[[Client outreach]] | ||
*[[Client communications]] | *[[Client communications]] | ||