Roger D'Aprix: Strategic Communication

The facets of reactive communication, in D’Aprix’s assessment, actually hinder the communication of information to the employees of a given organization and result in difficulties with the achievement of executive targets and visions. D’Aprix considers that the key features of a typical piece of reactive communication may include some or all of the following features of mode, tone and style:

• impersonal delivery in a written format
• an intimidating level of formality
• a message obscured and dehumanized through the over-use of official terminology and the passive voice
• a focus upon telling rather than justifying, or the valuing of ‘what’ over ‘why’
• a mixed signal is given, or there is a failure to match talk and subsequent action
• an overload of information
• a distance or opacity that leads to a ‘non-informative explanation’ [2]

In another key point, D’Aprix suggests that such a communication may lack ownership, in that the message originator will refuse to stand by their information in person. Leadership failure to speak openly and honestly and acknowledge ownership of a message, particularly where organizational changes are to be communicated, is the key origin of a culture of reactive internal communication.

Subsequently, junior leadership personnel may be forced to reiterate such impersonal statements, emulating senior behavior of necessity, even if their personal inclinations are more towards clarity in communication. Thus what begins as one incidence of top-down reactive and depersonalized communication becomes, almost inevitably, a negative culture of communication within the organization as a whole.

Communicating for Change advocates the transition from such reactive communication towards a strategic communication system and explicates the vital importance of this transition for organizations undergoing change. The essential difference between these modes of organization for internal communication systems is that of an appreciation of externalities in terms of market targets. Thus a market-based strategic communication strategy links the business vision of the organization, the market opportunities open to such, and the internal communication system, to provide a clear focus for the organization’s employees.

The linking of an organization’s internal communication strategy to its intended market targets is, claims D’Aprix, a vital clarification for all employees, rationalizing the information passed down through the management structure. Change will be less painful for all employees, even those whose roles must be altered or restructured, if the rational market-based explanation for such changes is clear from the communication itself, and change can therefore be seen as an intelligent response.

D’Aprix is quick to point out that the role of the internal communicator will change drastically as a result of this transition, becoming less a mere facilitator of communication, and more a strategist with a broad appreciation of company targets and missions, as well as employee information needs. They must become the key mediator in expressing the rationality of changes being communicated to the workforce. In addition, they must be the advocate of the importance of communicating all necessary information to the employees. They must be keen to establish an integrated sharing of information to provide a coherent picture of company responses to the changing marketplace.

The role of the internal communication manager has become essentially that of a strategist, rather than a reactor or reporter after the events, as with the reactive communication model.

To aid organizations wishing to take up the challenge of the strategic communication structure, D’Aprix has developed a ‘Strategic Communication Model’ to explicate the initial steps in implementing such a new mode of thinking about internal communication management. Beginning with a self-assessment exercise, he guides any given organization towards his integrated and market orientated approach.

Adopting the Strategic Approach

D’Aprix is almost apocalyptic in his predictions as to the fate of companies that fail to embrace a strategic approach to internal communications and rationalize their processes by grounding them in the marketplace. Yet he is quick to point out that his strategic model is being partially misunderstood by many organizations, and entirely resisted by many more. One explanation he finds for such resistance is a contemporary dependency on internal electronic media. D’Aprix stresses that formal communication media make up a mere 10% of communication within an organization, with personal interaction in casual situations being a widely neglected area.

In addition, the modern fascination with specifically electronic media may return forward thinking organizations to reactive communication’s inhumanity and distance. It also lends itself to a dangerous emphasis on the quantity and frequency of information sent rather than upon reception and results, which will be assessed via feedback. The idea of electronic technology as a save-all tool of internal communication is, for D’Aprix, a misunderstanding. Peter Drucker summarizes this view best when he states that ‘the computer is merely a tool… it is all too easy to confuse data with knowledge and information technology with information’. [3]

Thus a company attempting to deal effectively with internal communications in a competitive contemporary context cannot do so by the mere adoption of modern communication channels. For D’Aprix, the underlying model of communication must have made the transition from reactive to market-grounded strategic for an organization to cope with change in an effective and truly competitive way.