The time I have dedicated to studying the subject has taught me – at the very least – that one thing is very much for certain: everything that is applicable to a company is primarily applicable to us human beings. Furthermore, I regard it as one of the golden rules of the corporate world.
In fact, I would go so far as to state that, in the same way that lawyers consider a company to be a “juridical person”, communication professionals should regard it simply as a “person”, that is to say, a person that basically communicates freely and responsibly, while constituting a personality that marketers are in the habit of calling a “brand”.
So, using this approach, I will start be analysing personal coherence, followed by a commentary on some of implications that arise in the case of the corporate kind.
Personal coherence
On a personal level, coherence is probably the essential quality to which we aspire most nowadays – and which we like to boast about possessing. But, in reality, we are forced to admit that it is very difficult to achieve! Naturally, it is much easier for me to write about coherence than to practise what I preach. Even so, I am prepared to do the former (without renouncing the latter, by the way).
We are frequently told that a coherent person behaves in society in the same way that he or she does in the privacy of his or her own home. Nevertheless, apart from being a conduct that could become extremely extravagant, it is impossible to achieve. Neither is it realistic, nor should it be. It is not even natural, since our social nature introduces qualitative aspects into the behavioural equation.
However, even with different behavioural patterns, our coherence ought to protect us from losing a sole identity in one or another context. At present, the underlying debate on virtual reality has a lot to do with this point. Is it a second life (Secondlife, the most important virtual world on the web) or is it an extension of real life, the only life, what is being proposed here? In psychological terms, the former has always had the same name: schizophrenia. The most desirable state of affairs would be the latter, as the people in charge of Secondlife’s Spanish chapter admitted during the press conference held on the day it was launched.
Corporate coherence
In the field of corporate communication, harmonising reality (truth) with descriptive rhetoric (as we call corporate communication) encourages genuine leaders and frightens off the mediocre. Coherence leads us to say what we are doing and to do what we say. To say what we are doing means that we have to address both the positive aspects of which we are proud and the negative aspects of which we are not so proud. It has nothing to do with trying to cloak our qualities – some of which are evident - with false modesty, nor with the stupid compulsion to air our own shortcomings, also visible. It has to do with an essential respect for our organisation’s reality, above all internal.
It is relatively simple to express: when there is nothing to hide, the best course of action is to be frank. If something is not going to plan, firstly we must realise that something is wrong and, after reporting the problem to whoever ought to be kept informed (normally more people than we would like), find a solution. If something is done well – which is in all likelihood the case – this also requires an explicit and professional effort in terms of communication. We should not consider it already done.
Although anecdotal, in my opinion it is telling that the official guide of one of the most renowned universities in USA admits to the fact that the statue of its founder dominating the campus is the “statue of the three lies”, referring to the plaque below the statue, which reads as follows: “John Harvard, Founder, 1638”. Well, the statue does not represent John Harvard but a student that sat as a model for the man; he was not the university’s founder but its first benefactor; and the university was not founded in 1638 but in 1636. Three lies in four words, which is not bad for an institution whose motto is Veritas (truth).
But, when all is said and done, Harvard’s attitude is praiseworthy, chiefly thanks to its transparency. If concealed or, worse still, denied, the same reality can easy lead to internal distrust and undermine a company or institution’s public reputation for life.
Of course it is not necessary to resort to slogans or programmatic declarations for reality-based communication. Nevertheless, organisations that sacrifice truth paradoxically for a good cause are not exceptions to the rule. For instance, those who conceal information from their employees or feed them false information so as not to discourage them with facts and data that do not tally with the official line, or show managerial incompetence or immaturity, or a lack of sensibility. This communicative pathology is a way of putting into practice with deeds, verbally denied, the philosophy that the end justifies the means. The problem is that keeping quiet about something or denying it is at best a very short-term remedy. Apart from the mediocre, everybody wants to know the truth and, sooner or later, will discover it. The difference is that when employees find out about what they should have been kept abreast of internally once too often outside the four walls of their company, this undermines their trust, which is then difficult to rebuild.
Moderate and lethal symptoms of incoherence
There are alarm bells for those who are concerned about communication as an ingredient of their company’s working atmosphere in the medium and long term. A distinction should be made between the moderate and lethal symptoms. An example of the former is when nobody says internally and officially that something is not working or, at least, should be improved. This slight symptom becomes serious when progressive deterioration is internally perceived, while the official line (marketing and official statements) continues to ooze self-complacency.
And you do not have to look too far afield for an example. The difference between the growing international prestige of many Spanish universities (with students from all over the world) and the dwindling esteem that the employees and professors of these institutions have for them is eloquent enough. The participation (less than 50%) in some of the internal evaluation surveys that have been carried out proves that this difference of opinion, tacit until now, truly exists.
It is indeed a sad state of affairs: while foreign students grab the opportunity to study here, Spanish students are doing their best to find opportunities elsewhere. Something is not working; something very serious. We should not be so keen to see the speck of sawdust in the corporate world’s eye until we have seen to the plank in our own eye.
Give priority to internal communication
Even so, I venture to conclude with another “golden rule”, which stems from all that has been discussed above: give priority to internal communication. In many cases, this means that triumphant messages should be moderated, because if the company’s employees do not give credit to what is being said than it will soon come to the notice of those outside the company. In addition, although there are exceptions to the rule, the testimony of a disgruntled employee is more believable than that of a member of the managerial team, who swears blindly that everything is going to plan.
Credibility and reputation are forged within organisations. For this reason, both the excessive falsification of pseudo-communication, and bona fide information that is not transmitted on time, nearly always prove to be counterproductive.
In the case of event planners, it is important to draw a clear line between internal and external corporate events. The former take priority over the latter, which in a way can only take place after an internal event has been held, at least tacitly.
For our communication to be superabundant, we should first set our own house in order.
Juan Salvador Victoria Mas is a senior lecturer at Malaga University’s Faculty of Communication Science, and can be reached at ajsvictoria@uma.es
