Is slick good?

I do love the TV programme 'Pimp my ride'.  I especially love the fact that they never seem to touch the underlying mechanics of the cars - they just tackle the cosmetics on the assorted rust buckets that they work on.

Having spent ages in focus groups (which is always a real treat), the similarities to IC have been quite striking.  (stay with me here - the tortuous analogy does work out in the end).  It's very easy to get disconnected in IC from the audiences and a decent focus group always brings you back to earth.

And they always raise tough questions for communicators.

For some time, groups have raised the question for me about what people expect from change communcations and how slick should it be.

Last year, a line manager said to me in a discussion "your people don't expect you to be a perfect communicator - they just expect you to make an effort".  In fact I'm beginning to wonder if people expect effort over perfection every time.

The reason is that when discussing two very different change programmes, groups have talked about communications at length.  For some people, well produced communications tools lack authenticity and credibility.  They want to hear it face to face and with warts.

The issue seems to be that people know that changes at work are always messy - the more complex, the more messy it's going to be.  And when they see glossy brochures, crisply edited DVD's and fancy new websites -they just don't ring true.  At least that's what I've been hearing.

But that's probaby not welcome news for many communicators.  Often during change programmes we are not expected to do much more than put a presentational gloss on the wilder ideas from the project team.  Communications is called in at the end of the process when all the decisons (right or wrong) have been made and all that remains is a bit of reupholstery and some paint to cover over the dents and the rust.

Which brings me back to why owning reserach is so important at times like this.  Knowing the truth about what people are really thinking and care about isn't normally a defined job on transformation projects and is one that clearly sits best with us.  If we know what the punters are saying that puts us in an ideal position to push back when we called upon to apply the gloss to the rusty wreck of a project.

Liam

Comments

[Indy]

Absolutely agree about "owning research." One of IC's critical possibilities is that unlike HR (for example) it is in a position to solicit the opinions of people without too much suspicion.

On the question of "gloss" I do find this is very much more the case here in the UK than anywhere else. Something in the British character doesn't really trust "slick communications" and so in the stressful environment of "managing change" I think it really comes out.

Of course, if it's the case that "what people really believe" is coming out under stress, we probably need to think about that belief day to day. It might not be expressed so much, but people still believe it.

That's one of the things that makes me wary about a focus on "craft" is that the "craft" of communicators might not produce the kind of communications that other staff find authentic. A difficult balance there, perhaps, but one worth exploring.