The communicative guillotine: Why credibility is also a question of timing

Of course, it is important and right that communication to the outside and inside is correct in terms of content, that no untruths are spread, and that nothing is glossed over or rambled over without content. In the medium and long term, the action that follows the communication is of decisive importance. It is the action that makes the communication credible. This principle means nothing other than that what I promise to do, I should actually do.

If a company trumpets "There will be no job cuts!" into the universe in an announcement and then does it anyway, the whole communication is screwed. If, after a disastrous year, a major bank holds a press conference with a "We're getting humbler and have repositioned ourselves!" vows to improve and then does neither humble itself nor anything else in this direction, the hard-won credibility will be completely lost. And anyone who smokes his audience with similar, communicative and shadowy formulations once again at the next incident will not be believed at all in the end.

Those who instead manage their communication in a clean and credible manner also gain nothing - if the timing is wrong. An example: A large company announces a severe price increase on day X. One that affects thousands of people. One that affects thousands of people. Everything is understandable in terms of content, makes business sense and is somehow consistent with the economic environment. So far, so good. A few days before, however, this very company announced a new logo and, with the new external appearance, also the financial outlay that this exercise entails. This is also formulated in an argumentatively coherent manner, everything is justified, makes sense and is plausible from a marketing point of view. So far also good.

A few days later, it comes to light that it is precisely during this time that employees are invited to a grandiose party. It's an expense worth millions, which one might begrudge the employees - after all, they've had to wait a long time for something like this - and when broken down to the cost per participant, it's actually a small amount. The shortcoming: each message in itself seems justified, comprehensible in terms of content and, viewed in isolation, well communicated. But because all the messages were communicated at more or less the same time, the shitstorm started, the negative spiral in public opinion turned downward, and the image is increasingly tattered.

What is the right time - for what?

The communicative guillotine was and is timing - or is it the lack of internal communication about exactly this and about that? Basically, it's the same as at home or among friends: there, too, you think about the best time to ask a fellow human being for a favor. For example, as a young person who wants to take the parents' car out for a spin again. When is the right time to ask the father for the key? Whether in private or professional contact: We need to think about timing and sometimes even consider whether we are already communicating the appointed time as such - this helps not only for comprehensibility and comprehensibility, but even more so in terms of credibility.

If you want to achieve the maximum positive effect, you can not avoid the axis of timing. Here are the most important tips:

• Understandability and comprehensibility form the backbone of communication
• Openness, transparency create trust
• the action after communication makes credible
• but the timing is what makes it all work: not only must the "what" and the "how" be illuminated, but the "when" must also be taken into account.

* Stefan Häseli is an expert in credible communication, keynote speaker, moderator and author of several books. He runs a training company in Gossau SG. Communication in its different worlds and the details in language fascinate him and shaped his professional career.