There is nothing more stable in life than change. In their 2018 book “Strategic Communication” Jesper Falkheimer and Mats Heide from Lund University highlight the undeniable truth: communication never stops evolving. What adds to the constant flow of transformation and confusion, is that (such an easy) concept of communication means surprisingly different things to different people. Is talking synonymous with communicating? Is strategic communication identical to regular communication? Are discussion, debate, dialogue all the same?
Let’s delve into an example with yogurt. Take a look at the yogurt in the picture. If you merely want to talk about it, you might say: “This is yogurt.” When you wish to communicate about the yogurt to me, you’d say: “This is yogurt. Give it a try.” Now, applying strategic communication, you might say: “Are you hungry? Would yogurt be a satisfying solution?“. One picture, but many ways to “communicate” it, right?
Every product, service, or idea extends beyond its tangible form. It’s about addressing our problems or shaping our identity. Yogurt isn’t just a snack; it’s a solution to hunger. A special super protein yogurt with zero added sugars plus chia seeds and antioxidant-rich berries is not just a solution to hunger, but also contributes to my perception that I am maintaining healthy eating habits (or wishing to). Problem to solve + identity to shape = ideas, products & services to be acquired and owned (formula!).
As the example suggests, the intent of strategic communication is not to target the immediate goals of a specific communication effort (offering me yogurt with no further interest if I want it or not) but rather the overarching, long-term goals or organizational mission (providing me with a solution to my hunger and making sure that the yogurt may be The One). Consequently, strategic communication is not a tool for information dissemination. Strategic communication is a conscious and strategic process or in other words – a strategic effort aimed at every significant organizational action.
Falkheimer and Heide emphasize the interconnected nature of communication, organization and leadership which I find fascinating. Usually, when we join an organization (whether it’s public or private, small or large, dynamic or static etc) it is never a fixed or unchanging place – it is always evolving. Organizations are in fact extensive networks of relationships (quoting one of my ex-colleagues: “The most important part of my job are people”). Every interaction, whether it’s a formal meeting in a conference room or an informal chat in the hallways, acts as a subtle adjustment, either weakening or strengthening the relationships within the organization. All these relationships collectively create a pattern that is reproduced and molds the organization as a whole. Communication, therefore, produces and reproduces an organization. It lies at the heart of every organizational activity. Without communication as such, an organization ceases to exist.
So, even the most static organizations are actually a continuous organizing process which is shaped by communication (among organizational members and between the organization and its surroundings). In essence, organizations are brought to life or enacted through communication.
Successful organizations strive for a better understanding of strategic communication, recognizing its importance for the success of their work.
But unfortunately, for many it still remains as something rather simple, just a matter of disseminating information to different groups of receivers. Why is this the case?
Because there are different models or perspective on (such an allegedly simple thing as) communication, often overlooked by organizational leaders:
- Transmission or broadcast model, which still dominates the practice &
- Ritual or sensemaking model, which many organizations are now shifting towards
Before delving in each of them, it is important to mention that both are important. Both can be linked to different communication strategies at a higher level, but the key to success is to understand “what is what”.
- Transmission or broadcast model of communication:
- is deeply ingrained in the cultural practice, associating communication with verbs like distributing, sending, forwarding, and giving information to others;
- its roots trace back to historical developments such as the transmitting a message via horses, and later telegraph; despite technological advancements, the cultural understanding of communication still dominates and is understood as a process in which messages are transmitted and distributed to different receivers (and that is it);
- according to this transmission / broadcast perspective, information = communication; in a crisis or when organizations need to convey straightforward, instructive, or descriptive information to internal and external stakeholders, this model tends to “win”, as it simplifies communication into a one-way flow.
- Ritual, or now termed sensemaking, model of communication:
- focuses on the deeper meaning of communication;
- unlike the transmission model, its goal isn’t control or persuasion but rather the co-creation or cohesion of a community over time;
- this perspective aligns more closely with the original Latin meaning of “communicare” – “to make common“;
- here, meaning is constructed through interaction, involving both self-reflection and engagement with others.
Again, both perspectives matter, with the transmission model being effective in crisis situations or when disseminating straightforward information (quick, sharp and with no room for interpretation), while the ritual model emphasizes the importance of a shared understanding and community coherence (long, fluctuating, consensual). Transmission model prioritizes persuasion, while sensemaking model favors adaptation.
Both perspectives, transmission and sensemaking ones, reflect the evolution of communication from a traditional, one-way transmission model to a more two-way, participatory and co-creative approach.
This evolution emphasizes the changed role of people, users and consumers, from isolated and passive to interconnected, informed, and active participants in the communication process.
Falkheimer & Heide, thank you for the insights!
Olga talks about #communications 