Information distribution and hierarchies of voice value

One of the roles I have played throughout life is sounding board and facilitator which has proven quite valuable for those who have used the service. To close out my work week I spent a couple hours in a meeting with the head of global communications as they wanted to pick my brain a little when it comes to internal communication flow throughout the company. While not my area specifically, over the years I have been involved with this at a number of companies and organizations in various capacities and have enough experience to add some value.

One of the things that we discussed and they hadn't thought about before was informational hierarchy and how the "who" matters when it comes to whether the information is considered pertinent or not, believed or not or acted upon or not. While two people can say identical things, those same two people aren't necessarily held in the same regard by the audience and therefore, the message that one successfully delivers could fall on deaf ears when delivered by the other.

We all hold various hierarchies of importance when it comes to who we are talking to and who is delivering what message. For example, while the CEO sends a company wide email, if the same points are coming from a direct supervisor, the supervisor holds more sway in delivery. The reason is that there is a proximity and immediacy of the supervisor that makes what they say much more actionable in comparison to the same words from the CEO who is further away and perhaps often out of sight in the day to day. This means that there is also the closeness of feedback and consequence to be considered, where the supervisor is also the one who is going to be answered to, not the CEO directly.

In regards to the internal communication within our company, I see the communication department much like an information pool, where they have the information resources and need to distribute it to the places it is most effective and required. If they try to blanket communicate, the messages will likely be tailored to no one at a level that is granular enough to be actionable and, it is coming from a removed position rather than a direct line. This removes the audience and takes away the accountability for uptake and follow through.

The information pool is better served to tailor slightly and find information nodes within the organization who further refine the message for their target audience and push it onward where it can be fashioned to be more actionable for the audience, and since coming from a line supervisor, more proximate and therefore more highly weighted.

We generally raise our immediate concerns in the hierarchy of importance over that which is steps away in time or space and this is the same with information. And we will generally open our ears more widely to those who are closest to us, those who will evaluate our actions, those who will observe our behavior.

This is one of the problems when it comes to a lot of the communication surrounding the future, because while for example, everyone knows to save or invest something, that future isn't in our immediate scope of concern so, gets pushed lower down on the hierarchy of the mental to-do list. However, when those future-based actions are supported by proximate information that serves as a reminder to act now, there is more chance that the message will be acted upon.

This is why setting up some automatic transfers/buys for investment is good. It isn't because it is a a set-and-forget position, it is because the weekly or monthly action observed serves as a reminder as to why the process exists in the first place. And over time, the steps of the action and the results can be seen as the pool grows. This works much like learning any skill like playing the piano where regular practice leads to growing the skill pool to the point where eventually, there is competence. Financial competence is something many tend to overlook and rather think that it can't be practiced.

In regards to information flow, this is also one of those points that looks at what we choose to consume and if we only look at the concept level of something, we will not likely build the practical skills necessary to enact what we know, making what we know impotent. However, when we surround ourselves with information and people who are skilled and acting upon that information, we are more likely to be affected and follow suit.

I used an example with a colleague the other day where I asked him what he predicts his actions would be if he spent most of his time in a social network of obese people in comparison to a group of fit people (I use examples like this to take away nuance). Of course, actions change depending on our group norms, where we spend our time and if the information sources we eat from are narrow and filtered to a particular direction, we ourselves are probably going to be influenced toward the same direction.

We live in a world of "lead by example" even when there are no clear leaders because we set up our information hierarchies to put more emphasis on some over others, depending on what that information is and who is saying it. Based on where we eat, our actions are going to form and if the pool we choose to eat our information from is poisoned, we are likely going to act accordingly.

At the end of the day though, it is up to us as individuals to take the information we have access to and do the best we can with it, because it is us who must live with the experience and consequences of our life and our actions and reactions. Those who do not spend time considering the sources of information they subscribe to still have hierarchies that influence what they believe or don't, they are just much less likely to recognize what is useful, harmful, actionable or concept alone.

When it comes to our own personal hierarchies and who we listen to and act upon personally, that is going to depend on who we trust and who we trust is our own personal judgement of them and the information they provide. Again, while two people might give the same information, due to the level of trust involved one will get support, the other may not and while this might not seem fair, what it comes down to is that the trusted one has for whatever reason been able to build a relationship with the audience that pushes what they say up the informational hierarchy.

Being untrusted doesn't necessarily make one wrong, it just means that whatever is said isn't going to be listened to. This could be because the person is yet to earn trust or, like the boy who cried wolf, has a track record of being untrustworthy. The difference between those two untrusted positions is that one is yet to build relationships, the other has soured the relationships they have.

Your voice might be worth something, but only when one has earned the trust of those who listen.

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]