SMART COMMUNICATORS CARE ABOUT NUDGES

There's a growing body of research in the field of behavioural sciences that smart communicators should be paying attention to. It's work that isn't usually led by communicators. In the public sector, where it is gaining real traction, it tends to be led by policy experts drawing on the expertise of social scientists, psychologists and behavioural economists. But it presents an enormous opportunity for communicators to assume a strong role and to prove and improve the value of their work.

If you're not familiar with the field, behavioural science is being applied to design relatively small, low-cost interventions that generate proportionally large results. Often referred to as "nudges", the idea is that you can tweak the way a policy is applied to counter the natural psychological biases in all of us that may prevent us from making what would logically be considered the better choice - like enrolling in a pension plan. (For more background and examples, see the work of the U.K.'s Behavioural Insights Team.) 

If you look at the growing list of successful nudges in jurisdictions around the world, many of them are essentially based in sound communications practice - things like using clear language to increase compliance with policy. And the data-driven approach taken to prove the value of nudges can actually validate the importance of sound communications practice. But just as importantly, the science behind nudges can also help communications be much more successful. It provides a deeper level of understanding when you think about who your audience is and the dynamics that influence their response to you and your thing. 

Smart communicators would be wise to embrace this. And, while I may be bias in this, I think smart communicators who also have experience in policy development are also the wise choice to lead the implementation of nudges in any organization wanting to more effectively engage its clients. 

HOW SAUSAGES ARE MADE

There's the plan, in all its well-thought-out, nice tidy glory. With its timelines and page numbers and logic and clarity. Then there's how stuff actually ends up getting done. There's usually a big difference between those two things. You know those people you work with who somehow always stay calm when the plan starts to fall apart? The ones who keep their head when it's all going off the rails? Those are the people who understand that difference between the plan and the path and are comfortable in the gap.

THE RIGHT STUFF

Here's what you need to get stuff done: the right people with the right idea at the right time. Having all three won't guarantee success, but anything less will make success much harder. Maybe even impossible. 

FORGET THE BOX

Thinking outside the box has become such a cliche that it now means pretty much the opposite of what people intend when they say it. If you're still defining yourself and your thing in the context of the box, you're missing the point. You're living a lie. Forget about the box. Don't worry about whether you are inside it or outside it. The box does not exist. It's an artificial construct that only has as much power as you give it.

Oh I know, there are rules and expectations and norms that at some point you and your thing are going to bump up against. But norms and expectations are just that - they aren't immutable laws of the universe (those you do kinda need to live with). And one rule worth remembering is the one that says the rules can always be rewritten. 

Granted, there is no rule that says this will be easy. But if you want easy, keep thinking in a world of boxes. Keep starting from a place with limits. Keep starting from the belief that there's a clearly defined boundary between possible and impossible. If that's where you're comfortable, that's fine. You won't be lonely. But you'll also never really be free. Someone will put you in a box eventually. Or at least they'll try. You're under no obligation to make it easy for them. 

WHY ARE WE HERE?

"We create institutions to serve missions, to serve a purpose. But a lot of times, after a while, maintaining the institution becomes the purpose."

- Yong Zhao

That's the risk for any institution that has been around for a while. It was established with some noble purpose that everyone who joined it may believe in deeply. That purpose probably remains front and centre in annual reports and strategic plans and communication materials. But somewhere along the line, decisions start being made that don't necessarily line up. 

It starts small enough and usually with the best of intentions. But before you know it, somehow things start to be done not in the best interests of fulfilling that original purpose but in the best interests of meeting the administrative needs of the institution. You can see how it happens. The institution has become so established and so interconnected with the purpose, it starts to seem indispensable. Longevity and tradition replace meaning and impact as measures of progress. And then the people inside the institution start to confuse existing with doing. Then they lose touch, and then they lose trust, and then lose their ability to actually achieve their purpose because nobody believes in them anymore. And then the thread is lost.

Effective institutions don't ever think they matter more than their purpose. Effective institutions don't ever forget who they serve, and they know it's not themselves. Effective institutions don't assume their original purpose is even still valid. Great institutions are aspirational. They constantly question. They challenge their own beliefs and place, and are even willing to step aside if they can't find a way to matter. That takes a lot of courage. But courage is probably what got them started in the first place. An institution that loses its courage will almost surely lose its way. But you can find your way back.

THE REAL MAKER MOVEMENT

Listen, I get it. I get that there is a "newness" to this technology enabled sub culture of do-it-yourselfedness that is leading people to do some very creative and remarkable things. And so now we have this club called the "maker movement" and they are making cool things in their "maker spaces."

But, despite the hipster pretensions, making things is nothing new. And it's also not a return to anything. It's not a recapturing of some lost era. There was no mythical time when we stopped making stuff and then discovered that technology could let us do it again. What we make and how we make it vary over time. But we have always been making. That's what humans do. As much as our relentless desire for discovery and our ceaseless search for love, creating things is baked into what it means to be us. Art, ideas, weapons, cathedrals, clothes, tools, robots, whatever - we make stuff.

By all means, let's celebrate creativity and our ability to make things. But celebrate it for what it is - not a brand, or a clique or a start-up sector, but simply part of the essence of the continued arc of human experience. So it has ever been and so it shall ever be. Wherever you stand, the space around you in that moment is a maker space. We have made new tools that let us make new and different things, but the whole notion of making things is not a new movement. We just used to call it being human.

REMINDERS

Five things I try to remember:

1) One giant leap changed what we thought was possible, but it was the small step that changed what we believe.

2) Never underestimate the simple power of being able to explain something so clearly that it helps another human being see the world differently. That is art.

3) Every individual and idea, every institution, every thing we create and every endeavour we pursue is a story to be told.

4) You can't control the conversation, and truth be told you never could. But you can control the reason people talk about you. 

5) At the core of the human condition is the desire to believe and be believed, trust and be trusted, understand and be understood. Therein lies all the potential you need to bring people together and achieve something remarkable.

12 SECONDS

On this day 111 years ago, the world changed in 12 seconds. That's how long the Wright brothers' first flight was at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. Just 12 seconds. 

If they hadn't taken flight that morning, somebody else surely soon would have. They weren't the only ones trying to fly. But they were the ones who first made it work. And maybe what made the difference was that they didn't wait until they knew it would work. They didn't wait until they could be certain that they could make it across the Atlantic. All they needed was 12 seconds to prove their idea could work and begin to change the world. Then they tried again. And by the end of the day, they were up to 59 seconds. 

Go build something and see if it flies. Then adjust, improve and try again. More often than not, the world changes in increments. But only if somebody starts.