The future of internal communications

I was talking last week to a friend and former colleague working in one of our key UK divisions. She spends probably no more than 5% of her time writing content and the rest of the time devising processes and getting sign-off.

Increasingly internal comms does not seem to be about creating content which will interest people or that they will enjoy reading. It's not even about creating a structured approach to comms as a key part of every project or programme of change. Nor is it about delivering material which will help people do their jobs. It's as if the structure has become more important than the material itself. Provided you have a plan, a flow chart, 10 sign-offs, and full integration with other functions, it doesn't matter if what you deliver is almost unreadable, uninteresting, and is superseded on the intranet homepage within a couple of hours.

Surely, this is madness. People are turning to blogs and discussion groups to find out what is really going on and to wikis to share information about working. I don't think it's true that classic corporate comms is dead yet, nor is it even dying - there'll always be a need for some comms which represents the official position of the company - but I think it is quite sick.

Reptilian brain

On Friday I went to the engagement part of my cousin Mark and got chatting to a chap called Francis, who is a second cousin of my aunt (I think). He's involved in marketing and is doing some work on how we make choices using the reptilian brain, or brainstem.

Wikipedia helpfully says that the reptilian complex "... is responsible for rage^[1], xenophobia^[1], and basic survival fight-or-flight responses^[1]. Often, the R-Complex can override the more rational function of the brain and result in unpredictable, primitive behavior in even the most sentient of creatures, humans included."

Francis thinks that this explains a lot about why men like fast red cars with big bonnets. But how much does it influence people's response to internal communications? Do we judge everything in a rational way or is some of it instinctual?

One of our senior HR directors used the phrase "create an emotional burning platform" in a recent news item to launch a series of summit conferences for senior managers. This has raised an internal debate about use of jargon. Clearly a lot of people read this sentence and are immediately turned off. The HR director contends that we won't learn new phrases unless we encounter them. It's a bit like Beatrix Potter's soporific lettuces.

Several questions arise:

• In good communications, should we explain every phrase which might be unfamiliar to the audience? (I would argue yes, but you have to know your audience to avoid being patronising).
• When is it permissible to use jargon? (only if you know you have a specialist audience - which was not the case).
  
• What percentage of users will actually go away and look up the phrase or ask others what it means? (A few).
  
• What percentage of readers will use their reptilian brains to decide this phrase must come from an alien culture, triggering a xenophobic reaction? (A lot).

Changingminds.org says: "The term 'burning platform' is now used to describe a situation where people are forced to act by dint of the alternative being somewhat worse. The crisis may already exist and just needs to be highlighted."