Disastrous fetish character
It’s clear that communication at any cost is just as counterproductive as keeping silent. It’s all just a matter of balance.
Column Communication at any price is as counterproductive as keeping quiet. Communication is not everything, but without communication everything is nothing. This truism had to be fought for long enough, against the deniers of information and discussion here and elsewhere. Tempi passati. Today, an open and active communication policy is almost a matter of course. In any case, nobody disputes the corresponding demands and requirements any more. Anyone who wants to mean, achieve, defend or change something today must want to communicate and be able to communicate. In other words, they must not only be factually and socially competent, but also communicatively competent. The trust of voters, taxpayers, members, employees, social partners, customers or journalists is won by those who can justify and make plausible their plans, decisions and interests so that they can be understood and accepted by those affected (or their administrators and interpreters). After a long period of silence and stonewalling, many decision-makers in politics, business, society and culture have now embraced this imperative to an extent that gives cause for concern: People are communicating at the drop of a hat - even if they have nothing or nothing new to say.
Or sometimes it is even communicated prematurely with good intentions. For example, when a project is not yet fully developed, not yet sufficiently supported. Or if the decision to be communicated has not yet been made and the decision-making process is still open. The unpleasant consequence of such overzealousness for everyone involved: either words are not followed by deeds, which is paid for dearly with a loss of trust and credibility. Or you are suddenly obliged to follow up your fine words with good deeds that you neither wanted nor considered in terms of their impact.
Finally, the sin of one-sided information policy, which takes place exclusively or at least initially via the media, is also widespread. More and more executives are craving public attention before they have informed those affected by a project or decision - and trigger unnecessary irritation or even outright resistance. Or they use the producers of publicity as an instrument for placing interest-driven messages without considering that the media often pursue other interests. Or without
to bear in mind that the intended recipient of the communication is unlikely to enjoy reading it in the press first.
Communication as a fetish has its pitfalls and downsides, which need to be carefully considered and taken into account. At the heart of communicative professionalism must always be the question of what exactly should be communicated to which address via which channel and when. The consistent application of this maxim means that a somewhat more restrained, better dosed communication that is not only handled via the media is sometimes the wiser option.
Kenneth Angst was a member of the editorial boards of Weltwoche and NZZ and is now Managing Director of the communications agency Mediapolis, Zurich.
Or sometimes it is even communicated prematurely with good intentions. For example, when a project is not yet fully developed, not yet sufficiently supported. Or if the decision to be communicated has not yet been made and the decision-making process is still open. The unpleasant consequence of such overzealousness for everyone involved: either words are not followed by deeds, which is paid for dearly with a loss of trust and credibility. Or you are suddenly obliged to follow up your fine words with good deeds that you neither wanted nor considered in terms of their impact.
Finally, the sin of one-sided information policy, which takes place exclusively or at least initially via the media, is also widespread. More and more executives are craving public attention before they have informed those affected by a project or decision - and trigger unnecessary irritation or even outright resistance. Or they use the producers of publicity as an instrument for placing interest-driven messages without considering that the media often pursue other interests. Or without
to bear in mind that the intended recipient of the communication is unlikely to enjoy reading it in the press first.
Communication as a fetish has its pitfalls and downsides, which need to be carefully considered and taken into account. At the heart of communicative professionalism must always be the question of what exactly should be communicated to which address via which channel and when. The consistent application of this maxim means that a somewhat more restrained, better dosed communication that is not only handled via the media is sometimes the wiser option.
Kenneth Angst was a member of the editorial boards of Weltwoche and NZZ and is now Managing Director of the communications agency Mediapolis, Zurich.
