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."
No comments:
Post a Comment