There are some questions an organisation should only have to answer once, don’t you think? I’m not saying that corporate responses have to be set in stone. Obviously, companies evolve, markets change and priorities shift too. What makes sense today may no longer do so in a few years’ time, and that shouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. However, there are certain issues that are best resolved well before the need arises to make a decision in the field of communications. That’s what I’m referring to.
What sort of organisation do we want to be? What position do we hold (or want to hold) within our sector? What conversations do we want to lead? What principles should guide our communication when the situation becomes uncomfortable?
These might be some of the questions, but I’m sure you can think of more. The interesting thing is that many companies don’t realise they’ve never actually stopped to answer them until circumstances force them to do so.
That is when the endless meetings begin, along with messages that keep changing from one version to another, doubts about who should speak, and the feeling that any decision taken could be the wrong one. From the outside, it looks as though the organisation is managing a complex situation, but in reality, it is often trying to resolve in a matter of days discussions that it had been putting off for years.
That is why it is difficult to talk about strategic communication only when a crisis arises or when a company needs to issue a statement. Communication begins long before that. It begins with the way in which an organisation understands its own role, interprets what is happening around it and develops a framework that enables it to make decisions without constantly relying on the context.
Is the problem a lack of answers?
When an organisation is constantly reacting, it is common to assume that the problem lies in communication – that there is a lack of messages, spokespersons or a more clearly defined protocol. But that is rarely the case. What is usually missing is something less visible: a shared approach.
When this approach is in place, decisions may be complex, but they rarely start from scratch. If the organisation already knows the framework through which it interprets reality, then it is aware of the limits of its discourse, understands which issues are worth taking a stance on and which are simply part of the everyday noise. In short, it avoids having to reconstruct its identity from scratch in every conversation.
However, if that groundwork has not been laid, any external event takes on disproportionate significance. A news story shifts priorities, a competitor changes their narrative, a conversation on social media forces a rethink of a message that seemed finalised just a few hours earlier. The organisation falls into the habit of continually adapting to the criteria dictated by the context.
Symptoms usually appear long before any problems arise
The tricky thing about this sort of situation is that it rarely presents itself in an obvious way. There is no specific moment when a company shifts from being strategic to becoming reactive. The change is usually gradual, which is why it is difficult to spot.
Decisions start to be delayed because of a “lack of information”; messages need to be reviewed once more; each department interprets a situation differently; spokespersons seek further confirmation before responding; and silence ends up seeming like the safest option whilst waiting for the conversation to settle down.
Taken in isolation, none of these behaviours would necessarily pose a problem. They may be reasonable in certain contexts, but when they cease to be exceptions and become part of the usual way of operating, the problem becomes apparent.
That is when the organisation does not use communication to support decision-making. Instead, it uses decisions to try to resolve a communication process that was never fully established.
Reacting does not always mean being agile
An unwritten rule has been established which dictates that an organisation must respond as quickly as possible to any relevant discussion if it wishes to remain on the authorities’ radar, and whilst this is partly true, there are nuances to it.
Current events are moving at breakneck speed and it’s impossible to ignore them. What’s more, staying silent also sends a message (though not always a positive one). But let me ask you this: is responding quickly a sign of agility? And here’s my answer: not necessarily. Sometimes, it’s exactly the opposite, because it doesn’t necessarily mean responding well.
It is one thing to act swiftly when you already know exactly what position you want to defend, and quite another to rush into a response because you have not yet decided what that position is. It may look the same from the outside, but from the inside the difference is enormous. In the first case, speed is used to carry out a decision that had already been made. In the second, speed is used to try to reach a decision before the conversation moves on without one. Agility, therefore, also involves not having to start from scratch every time something happens.
Many reactive organisations give the impression of being in a constant state of flux. They publish, respond, correct, update messages and adjust their messaging with agility. Does this sound familiar? Indeed, behind this often lies a constant dependence on context. And that dynamic ends up consuming an enormous amount of time, resources and energy – but not because of the changes themselves. In fact, as I’ve said before, change isn’t a bad thing.
Strategic communication involves making decisions in advance
When we talk about strategy, we tend to think of planning. But, in reality, a significant part of strategy involves reducing the number of decisions that will need to be made in the future. Why? Because the organisation has already defined the principles it will use to interpret whatever happens. This allows it to react only when necessary, as well as to change its mind if new arguments arise or to adapt a message to different contexts.
None of these decisions stem from a fear of making a mistake or from the pressure of the moment. They are made on the basis of criteria established beforehand.
Perhaps that is why the organisations that manage their communications most effectively are not necessarily those that speak the quickest or react the fastest, nor those that come up with all the answers first. They are the ones that, when the time comes to make a decision, already know why they are making that decision. They have known this for some time because they asked themselves the important questions long before anyone else did.