Best practice is in the how, not the what.

I listened to a discussion on an Internal Communication podcast recently that argued that we should stop looking at best practice and instead aim for good practice .

It frustrated me for several reasons, partly because I think that saying there are no best practices in communication is a poor faith argument that can be adopted as a justification for not stretching a function; and partly because the discussion highlights that there is still an overemphasis in the internal communication sector on tactic and not on problem definition and solution design.??

So, on the eve of the Asia Pacific IABC Blue Ribbon panel for judging Gold Quill awards, and in the midst of judging a range of excellent work that is applying best practice communication planning, I found myself increasingly annoyed by the idea that there is too much emphasis on best practice, or indeed that there is no such thing.

In terms of communication planning, I use a gauge ranging from poor practice to perfectionism in which there is a zone of ‘pragmatic delivery’ that sits in between these two polar extremes. Rather than thinking of this as settling for good practice, this is a best practice way of defining what is a fit-for-purpose solution for the environment, taking into account the outcomes required, the resources available, and the strategic maturity of the organisation, its leaders and its communication function. That is the semantic difference: there is not one single best practice solution for strategic communication. Solutions are myriad, and they range from poor practice to a perfectionist ideal of communication theory in their conception and in their implementation.

For many years I started every workshop about internal and organisational communication with a number: 75000. It was,, at the time, the approximate number of hours spent at work by the average person in their lifetime. The number is symbolic but is at the heart of why internal, organisational, and interpersonal communication is worthy of such focus. Communication is one factor that makes a significant difference to the quality of those hours. That heuristic regardless the actual number, holds true wherever the debate on engagement, purpose, and meaningful work has currently landed.

That number rises when you consider the amount of time that people spend talking to friends and family, partners and pets, about their day. What pissed them off, what frustrated them, what made sense, and what didn't. The cultural landscape that is shaped by the quality of communication.

So let's say 100000 hours. Conservatively.

Sure, communication doesn't impact all of those, but think of how you feel when you experience:

- leadership waffle

- manager waffle

- conflicting priorities

- communication that doesn’t recognise you

- change that seems to be for changes sale

- decisions that don't take your needs into account

- misinformation

- no feedback

- goals and objectives that don't make sense

- tick a box values

- no evidence of lived values

- meetings that could have been teams chats

- emails that should have been meetings

- contradictory processes

- no visibility of performance

- email overload

- confusing information architecture

These are just a few of the areas where there are established approaches of creating improvement and addressing poor practice. Communication is seldom the only answer but is almost always part of a solution. And the way that solution will be tailored to the environment is part of best practice communication. Copypasta is not a strategy. Best practice is in the how, not the what. It's in matching the solution to the environment. It's not a 'find and replace' approach to what worked somewhere else.

Fit for purpose and the 80%?

"The enemy of done is perfect". There is a lot of room for fit for purpose in the world of organisational communication. Over-engineering solutions can lead to messages being delayed, or not devolving communication to those closest to the operational heart. This applies to content generation especially - a phone-shot update from an exec at an event is exponentially more authentic than an autocued corporate shoot in almost every case. So in tactical terms, fit for purpose. becomes an acceptable measure that allows for investing in the things that do move the communication dial. It's also where communication teams can begin to claw back that most precious of resources - time to invest in the things that keep the needle on the right part of the dial.

And, if we are defining best practice as understanding the context in terms of business outcomes, defining the outcomes, crafting messages and choosing methods of working with those messages that will connect with all the relevant audiences in a way that meets the outcomes, and putting in place the support to ensure that is done in a sustainable way - if those things are in place, then defining outcomes that are fit for purpose is still a form of best practice. When I developed the COMMS plan method almost a decade ago, it was rooted in the fact that communication teams were looking for the best template for communication planning - rather than the best process for arriving at a result that was matched to their circumstances.?

Think of ourselves as customers for a moment. While for many purchasing choices we might make a decision based on what is good enough for the price we can afford. But the thing that makes us repeat purchasers is seldom that the product is "good". It's that it's the best - for us. For our needs and wants. It might be the best for price, or convenience, or the best for fit, or for flavour. We as consumers define that.

The same is true of our consumers as communication professionals. What best looks like is going to vary from organisation to organisation, from audience to audience. But best practices are those that get the result interescts the business need and the audience need - the process by which we define the result and the solution in the specific setting.?

Best practice means always taking a strategic and creative approach to working on things that will make a difference to those 75000 hours. It means not taking a 'let's take a solution that worked there and use it here' approach without doing the diligence and working the process to see if its the right fit or the right price or the right flavour.

As communication professionals, are we all good with that??

#internalcommunication #bestpractice #ic #strategiccommunication #communicationplanning #excellence #practicalcommunication #weleadcomms #iabc