On talking points

Ad-hoc communications can be painful. Memory is unreliable, and as humans, we need as many shortcuts as we can get to reduce the amount of thinking (and spontaneous speech) we have to do, especially when we’re on the spot with large audiences. Developing a communication framework to share with leaders brings consistency and clarity to messaging. It creates a unified front when presenting information and making decisions, fostering trust and credibility with teams and stakeholders. It also gives other leaders a foundation to craft their own messages, avoiding misunderstandings while creating shared ownership of the messaging.

During a team townhall, I was asked about the role of aesthetic in design and how we can balance aesthetic with functionality. Our team recently declared our intention to elevate the aesthetic of our product, and with it, some questions came up around what that means from a day-to-day product development practice. I began crafting a bulleted answer:

• Aesthetic means we are focusing on harmony, symmetry, hierarchy, order, and rhythm in our designs. We use design to make complex interfaces feel less heavy.
• Aesthetic and functionality do not have to be at odds: the humans we are designing for deserve a beautifully functional experience.
• We do not aspire to be decorative or vogue, and we stand by our principles for good visual design.
• Our product is chaotic and stressful because we’ve tolerated an unfocused and distracting experience. Until now.

I try to be as clear and definitive (read: not handwavy or overly broad) in communications as possible. In async and sync communications, I try to develop as many supporting points as is necessary to balance conciseness and clarity, and outlining is something I now do automatically. In the previous example, I wanted to guide the answer through a few key messages:

1. Create definition. Define aesthetic clearly and simply so there is shared understanding around what is meant.
2. Resolve the implied tension. Address the aesthetic/functionality dichotomy and reframe with the definition.
3. Set the limit. We have a reasonable definition that is within our grasp, and know when we will overreach.
4. Status quo. Where are we now and how did we get here?

While I’ve crafted these short notes, there is great power in socializing with other leaders and key stakeholders across the organization. Collaborating with others builds a shared responsibility for the communication, building cohesion in the messaging. I started practicing sharing many of my notes with others (especially senior leaders within my organization) so we have an FAQ-style approach to communications that helps create a shared narrative. Other leaders can then rebound off of the key points and cascade communications to their audience in a way that fits their personal style.

Some tips I wish someone told me:

• Don’t YOLO talking points. Share frameworks and talking points early and often.
• Encourage collaboration. Create shared ownership of messaging and unification.
• Follow up on ad-hoc answers. If you are giving ad-hoc comms, make sure to follow up with leaders and key stakeholders on your talking points.
• Definition helps, but leave room for style. There are key definitions to have shared alignment on, but let leaders craft messages that work for their style or audience that can support shared goals and outcomes. Don’t be overly definitive or scripted.

As I write this, it seems painfully obvious that this is a good practice. Communication plans have saved me from myself many times in my leadership career, and I’m a big proponent of not YOLOing the comms plan. In addition to having talking points crafted for different audiences, comms plans usually have a cascading element which doesn’t apply for adhoc questions or rollouts of larger initiatives. These communication frameworks and shared artifacts are extremely helpful for executing communications across multiple speakers and audiences.