Your surgical takedown of our profession was brutal, in the most “chef’s-kiss” way. For all the umbrage it stirred in me, the insights were equally sobering. You said the quiet part out loud for us to hold up a mirror and confront the reflection. Boo – and bravo!
You're correct about whom corporate comm represents and answers too first. Yet I also respectfully argue that it has to communicate responsibly and credibly if stakeholder relationships are important and matter. That means there does need to be a degree (the degree can be debated) of "authentic" interaction.
This said, your piece: a real deep-dive presentation. Impressive.
"... while respecting audience intelligence." Is corporate comm always achieving it? I'm not so sure it is if you believe accuracy of the research findings.
I agree that AI will only get better and it will be difficult to distinguish between what humans and technology communicate. I'd add that credibility and trust matter much when humans, not machines, remain the audience.
I have a similar take when I work with leaders on internal comms. We go for congruence and coherence. Is the language clear and true? Or does it create dissonance for employees, like if folksy language is used to deliver a harsh business decision?
We’re wired to be suspicious when we sense dishonesty, especially from people who control our working conditions. It touches on our most foundational needs for safety and security. At best, performative authenticity breeds cynicism. At worst, it stirs discontent.
If the point of “authenticity” is to help a message land and stick, we’re better off aiming for clear, true, and actionable.
Well damn
Your surgical takedown of our profession was brutal, in the most “chef’s-kiss” way. For all the umbrage it stirred in me, the insights were equally sobering. You said the quiet part out loud for us to hold up a mirror and confront the reflection. Boo – and bravo!
Thanks for hanging in there with me, Cassandra. These debates aren't easy, but they're worth having (in a respectful way). Cheers to you.
A very insightful piece. Really appreciate your in-depth look at authenticity in a function like Corporate Communications.
You're correct about whom corporate comm represents and answers too first. Yet I also respectfully argue that it has to communicate responsibly and credibly if stakeholder relationships are important and matter. That means there does need to be a degree (the degree can be debated) of "authentic" interaction.
This said, your piece: a real deep-dive presentation. Impressive.
"... while respecting audience intelligence." Is corporate comm always achieving it? I'm not so sure it is if you believe accuracy of the research findings.
I agree that AI will only get better and it will be difficult to distinguish between what humans and technology communicate. I'd add that credibility and trust matter much when humans, not machines, remain the audience.
Credibility is KEY!
Great post. I also think we should shift the focus from "who produced the content" towards "who liked it" . https://www.ecairn.com/blogs/forget-trusting-contenttrust-people-rebuilding-credibility-in-the-age-of-ai
Indeed. That's an engagement metric worth paying attention to.
Your “hi team” example... so good.
I have a similar take when I work with leaders on internal comms. We go for congruence and coherence. Is the language clear and true? Or does it create dissonance for employees, like if folksy language is used to deliver a harsh business decision?
We’re wired to be suspicious when we sense dishonesty, especially from people who control our working conditions. It touches on our most foundational needs for safety and security. At best, performative authenticity breeds cynicism. At worst, it stirs discontent.
If the point of “authenticity” is to help a message land and stick, we’re better off aiming for clear, true, and actionable.
Brava, Cat. We're singing from the same hymnal on this one.