Data, assumptions and challenges

The IoIC’s IC Index is out and, as always, there’s plenty of useful insight into the profession to sift through.

The themes have remained consistent over the last few years: trust is dwindling, leaders are struggling to find time for communications (and to feel empowered to do it), and frontline employees are still underserved by our usual communications mix.

It’s also one of the most comprehensive pieces of research we have into internal communications.

The raw figures are impressive: up to 5,000 respondents from UK businesses with more than 500 employees. It’s worth remembering that 99.9% of UK private sector businesses have between zero and 249 employees, and at 44, we’re pleased to say we have several clients with dedicated internal communications functions in companies with fewer than 500 employees.

I know that the findings regularly make their way into conversations about how we should move forward as a profession, with data and insights used as evidence to support change.

But I think there’s an interesting conversation to be had about how we use that insight – and that requires us to stay curious and be prepared to investigate exactly what we’re being told.

One of the more attention-grabbing headlines comes on page 56: ‘Don’t forget to communicate the good news’.

In a report that has, until this point, focused on the challenges thrown up by the state of permacrisis we’re all experiencing, that line stands out.

Here’s what the report says: “Poor communication of good news has a greater impact on advocacy and perceptions of communication than mishandling bad news.”

The data shows that of respondents who believe their organisation communicates good news effectively, 73% would recommend it as a place to work. For those who don’t, that figure drops to 24%.

A similar pattern exists for bad news, but the gap is smaller: 77% versus 39%.

What can we take from this? The gap in advocacy between positive and negative perceptions is larger for good news than for bad news.

So, as the headline suggests, communicate more good news and advocacy will follow.

A neat conclusion, but not one the data fully supports.

Is there causation here? We don’t know and the information given can’t prove it – it can only show association. Someone might think an organisation communicates bad news well but good news badly, and still recommend it as a good place to work. The reverse could also be true. The report doesn’t tell us how these views overlap or interact.

But that isn’t what the data is telling us. What I take from that is there might be a chance these two things are causally related – it might be something to investigate further.

As comedian and statistician Andy Zaltzman put it: “Statistics are like a ventriloquist’s dummy. Shove your hand far enough up them, and you can make them say whatever you like.”

Data is useful – but interpretation matters just as much.

Before you commit to flooding your comms channels with good news stories, it’s worth asking a few questions:

What counts as a ‘good news’ story? Are we talking about examples of positive culture, like reports from volunteering days or big fundraisers organised internally, or are we talking about positive business performance updates, like record profits or a major acquisition? The former might be a lever you can more easily identify and pull. The latter probably isn’t.

And what does ‘effective’ good news look like? Is it simply news that people enjoy, or news that is clearly understood and meaningful?

Another unknown is the underlying health of the organisations respondents work in. The ‘halo effect’ suggests that if people feel positively about their organisation, they are more likely to rate its communications positively too – and vice versa.

None of this invalidates the findings. But it should change how we use them.

Remember, there may be a causal link here – we just can’t see it yet. Like any good research, the IC Index throws up lots of interesting hypotheses that would benefit from further, more refined testing. That might be less pithy than any absolute claims but is important to remember.

So, does the evidence confirm or challenge the hypothesis? And what do we need to measure ourselves to truly understand it?

Measurement often comes at the end of communications. But if we start with it – define a hypothesis, test it, create outputs and outcomes, and then test it again – we might end up in a very different place.

That’s why, when I look at the IC Index, I’m not looking for conclusions. I’m looking for hypotheses to test. And it’s the same approach we take at 44 Communications.

If you’re interested in speaking to me about how to respond to your communications challenges – or want to dig deeper into measurement – drop me a line: nick.robbins@44communications.co.uk.