Today the most evident communication problem within an enterprise, institution or agency is the increasing separateness of internal communication linked to production from external communication focused on offering products (goods or services) to the final users. A solution that can be defined as “smart”, perhaps even technologically advanced, presents significant added value for an organization only if it’s able to impact on this important problem.
In fact, in the majority of cases where communication is in crisis, we notice a weakness if not a total absence of communication and relative organization favoring interaction between knowledge, practice, and necessities of production, and that which characterizes use of the products, and the recognized and unrecognized needs that emerge from the public who use them.
Technology often doesn’t deliver promised results because information technologies are seen as a solution per se, regardless of the strategic vision and mission that an enterprise or institution wishes to convey. Thus, innovation that’s fruit of a sort of divine vision of technology is far from being a system (if you exclude mechanically automated systems) when it’s simply dropped into the daily reality. This is why an undifferentiated use of solutions often causes the opposite effect and accentuates communicative criticality. The architecture of IT is rarely inserted into an organization in order to add value to it’s specificity, and even less frequently it aims to grasp originality or highlight peculiarities. If anything, the result is the opposite: a high risk of uniformity, a flattening effect, standardization. The generative communication paradigm utilized by the CfGC interprets organizations as living organisms, and places maximum attention on reinforcing interactions between internal and external communicative flows and, at the same time, on the role, functioning, and centrality of the individuals who make up and, thus, characterize the organization itself.
The successful communicative paradigm of today refers to a “bad” model of communication, that is to say one which–through hierarchical, transmissive and emulative logic and dynamics–tends to interpret communication as the main tool to preserve and reinforce a system that increasingly isolates, flattens, and conforms the individual without recognizing and valuing uniqueness.It is a system that nullifies and banishes the diversity of the single elements and renders us unaware of the logic that holds up our daily social, economic, and political systems.
Instead, the generative communication paradigm aims to give value to each single subject and to center the planning of new social and economic models on them, their needs, their knowledge, and their real necessities in order to favor community building. This is a communicative paradigm devoted to generating a shared and cooperative awareness that recognizes an active and creative function in each subject. In this way, it generates new resources.
Indeed, “good” communication has little in common with mere information transfer that targets more or less defined recipients. Rather, it supports a proactive and interactive communication in which all subjects are called on to participate and endeavors to not simply transfer information and contents but to support and foster the relationships between different stakeholders in such a way to create increasingly greater knowledge, expertise, and skills.
The generative communication paradigm promotes an approach that interprets organizations as true living organisms that constantly activate formal and informal relations with the environment with which they are called upon to interact.
The main objective of the generative paradigm is to place the single individual at the center of every system, every strategy, and every action, recognizing and valuing his/her uniqueness and, above all, creativity to give a truly useful and functional contribution to the development of the organization itself.
In this regard, the organism metaphor offers considerable potential. For example, by focusing on relationships among organizations as open systems and surrounding environments; by improving organization management starting from the needs of the individuals and the organization itself and which constantly come in contact with the outside world through interactive processes; and by fostering openness toward innovative processes that expose the entire structure of the organization to discussion.
Going from communication about a product to communication within it means shifting attention to the necessity for inter- and transdisciplinary working tables that analyze the needs of various stakeholders who know the characteristics of the reference territory. In this way, there is co-participatory and cooperative planning where the creativity of all the subjects involved in the communicative process are valued.
This is the only way to create products that respond to the real needs of all the stakeholders who are directly and indirectly involved, for example entrepreneurs, associations, institutions, organizations, private citizens, etc. And this in turn brings benefits in terms of social and economic strength.