Communication Methods

The second element of communication legitimacy involves the methods of communication and how they correspond with the communication norms, values, and beliefs of the overall organization. During the beginning of this research, various breakdowns in communication occurred:

“Something in our communication isn’t working” [Fieldnotes from Jan 16]

This reflection related to four particular communication breakdowns occurring prior to and during the first weeks of this research. First, Inland conducted a user survey in the Migri customer service points, which went against the norm for communication with customers. Second, Inland sought (and was denied) to place interactive posters in the same service points, which was even farther from the norm. Third, Inland used their blog as a mechanism to share work on a particular project, which was seen as inappropriate over-sharing by the Migri organization. Fourth, Inland published a blogpost about a project involving Migri teams, whereby afterwards the teams were uncomfortable with the public positioning of their teams and work.

In each of these cases, Inland was leveraging brand new tools, methods, and approaches to communication which challenged the typical organizational communication norms, or the “perceived appropriateness” (Deephouse et al. 2017) of communication methods in Migri. The quick succession of these four communication breakdowns resulted in the need for Inland to defend their legitimacy. Inland faced mostly performance challenges (Hirsch and Andrews 1986) by related Migri sources, as these constituents simply did not understand the use of new media, like posters and blog posts. As Deephouse et alia (2017) pointed out, legitimacy leads to resource attainment; in this case the opposite was true as related legitimacy defense teams locked up resources.

Nonetheless, data was also gathered that included strategies for overcoming communication legitimacy challenges. One such strategy is to tailor the communication approach to the specific organizational audience. One advisory board member suggested creating profiles or personas for different stakeholder groups:

“How does Inland communicate (differently) to the different stakeholders?” - For example, at his company they create profiles [similar to personas] of their customers. Different customers have different needs, and subsequently the communication to them should also be different, based on that. “...It helped us to align how we can help the person the best.” [Paraphrase from AB3]

One element of this strategy is aligning the messaging of communication to meet the needs of the different stakeholders. Another element is adapting the communication tools or mechanisms themselves to the target stakeholder group. Inland tends to use different tools than the rest of Migri, which caused the previously mentioned communication breakdowns, and also may inhibit collaboration:

Today Inland met with a new team to discuss potential collaboration. Inland suggested potential communication tools such as blogs, podcasts, videos… they were very uninterested in new formats... [Fieldnotes from Feb 7]

Blogs, podcasts, videos, and posters are completely against the “socially constructed view of norms, values, and appropriate behavior” in Migri. Thus, these tools themselves pose a challenge to gaining legitimacy within Migri. Per Rauth et alia’s (2015) findings,

alternatively, Inland can adopt the communication practices of the broader Migri organization, in a tailored manor, with critical stakeholder groups. By aligning with the existing organizational work practices, Inland builds pragmatic legitimacy with Migri. Nevertheless, Deephouse et alia (2017) highlight, specifically, how new forms of digital technology, particularly give teams new ways to influence legitimacy. Online communication resources like Inland’s blog, twitter account, and website, while concurrently challenging Migri’s norms, also create a platform for enlisting legitimacy externally.

The very point of the founding of Inland, and often of design labs, is to do things differently, and communication is no exception. Design labs should not lose that. It is also important to remember that “artifacts” of design like advertising materials, can also help to build legitimacy on all levels (Rauth et al. 2015). Suchman (1995), in describing the “manipulating environments” strategy for gaining legitimacy, describes how advertising and strategic communication activities act as a means to persuade constituent audiences in the organization and build cognitive legitimacy. Thus, communication is a critical element in legitimacy gaining and maintenance. However, designers should make a proactive, conscious, and strategic choice of when to challenge the norms with their communication, and when to align with the norms. Tõnurist et alia (2017) suggest one potential approach: using formal communication mechanisms for communicating such things as results to the parent organization, while leveraging less formal communication mechanisms (e.g. blogs, videos) internally and to peer labs. It is important to acknowledge the impact communication mechanisms have on legitimization, and ensure they are done intentionally and strategically.

6.1.3 Language

The third element of communication legitimacy concerns the inevitable language itself. It is important to note that the Migri organization, and by and large the entire Finnish public sector, speaks Finnish as their operating language. However, the Inland team speaks English, as Finnish is not the first language of multiple team members. As necessary as English is, it acts as a barrier to the legitimization of Inland within Migri. Additionally, it acts as a barrier to accomplish Inland’s mission, as naturally many Migri employees are not comfortable speaking in English. This finding emerged in interviews and in fieldnotes throughout the study. During interview I5, the interviewee asked:

"Do you speak Finnish? …Because I think [talking English] is one thing that people might be afraid of… They might be intimidated by having to speak it publicly. I think this can be a bit of a barrier HERE, especially in Migri." [I5]

This topic came up in many conversations, and fieldnotes throughout the research. People in the organization were not comfortable speaking in English generally, let alone to do so with complicated topics like service design. Suchman (1995) emphasizes the importance of building understanding and trust, in order to gain credibility and legitimacy. The very

foundation of understanding is language. In the case of Inland in Migri, the terms themselves are already complicated. Even in one’s native language, the terms (e.g. co-design, needfinding, and ideation) need a figurative translation. That understanding is only further complicated by requiring a literal translation as well.

During the course of this research, the Inland team was well aware of this language challenge, and updated the hiring criteria for all future hires to include a working knowledge of the Finnish language. After this research was completed one visual designer was hired, and two new interns were hired, all who are native Finnish speakers. Martin (2007) says, “Seek to communicate on each other's terms,” and that is exactly what Inland is doing.