Mastering changing audiences or contexts
Understanding your field of action does not mean pretending to control shifting audiences or contexts. For communication professionals, it is less about dominating the space than listening to it, reading between the lines, and working with its contradictions. Stakeholders (customers, users, partners, citizens, employees) are neither homogeneous nor always accessible. They are fragmented, sometimes silent, often ambivalent.
Serious mapping does not simply identify visible actors; it also questions those who are absent, marginalized voices, and underlying tensions. Adapting a message is not simply a matter of "translating"; it also involves choosing a position within a field of forces, which requires ethical trade-offs. By becoming aware of the various social issues and competing narratives, communicators must be able to identify the dominant narratives and those that are invisible. Monitoring media and societal trends must be critical: which narratives dominate the public sphere? Which others are invisible? What biases are we unintentionally reinforcing by relaying them? Adapting is not enough; sometimes we must confront these narratives in order to redefine the discussions and pave the way for more accurate communication.
Data, yes, but not blindly
Data is valuable, but it does not tell the whole story. Behind the numbers, there are blind spots: underrepresented audiences, biases in data collection, and biased interpretations. The danger is not the absence of data, but the blind trust placed in it. For decision-makers, relying on analytical tools must go hand in hand with a capacity for self-criticism. Data should inform choices, yes, but it should not serve as an alibi for decisions that have already been made. In other words, data should not be manipulated to give an appearance of rationality or rigor to choices that are in reality motivated by other factors (political, emotional, opportunistic, etc.).
Dominant narratives cannot be "managed": they are questioned, deconstructed, and sometimes challenged. A clear-headed decision-maker must be prepared to question their own representations, including those that seem comfortable. This requires active listening and a willingness to understand the feelings and perceptions of audiences in relation to the organization or institution. For example, quantitative data can mask deep negative feelings that are not expressed through numbers. A qualitative approach, through open discussions or interviews, can reveal underlying concerns that deserve to be addressed. By incorporating these elements into decision-making, leaders will be better able to anticipate the concerns, criticisms, and expectations of different stakeholders.
Anticipating information gaps and biased narratives
More profoundly, understanding one's field of action also makes it possible to anticipate information gaps and misinterpretations that could undermine the communication of the organization or institution. These gaps can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the messages conveyed. By identifying biased or hostile narratives circulating about them, decision-makers can better anticipate criticism and respond strategically. Rather than ignoring these narratives or dismissing them as mere misunderstandings, it is more effective and responsible to confront them, understand their motivations, and counter them with constructed narratives that restore meaning without disregarding public perceptions.
No communication without conflict
Understanding your sphere of influence also means recognizing that you cannot control all stakeholders. Certain audiences (local residents, citizens, activist communities, engaged online users) do not fall within the internal structure of the organization and cannot be "mobilized" on demand. However, they have the power to strongly influence the reputation, social acceptability, or legitimacy of a project, action, or presence.
In these cases, participatory communication cannot be limited to well-oiled storytelling. It must create spaces for dialogue where disagreements can be expressed frankly. It is not a question of "convincing at all costs" or waiting for perfect consensus, butof actively listening to what is troubling people and treating these criticisms as useful signals, not as misinterpretations.
Let's take the example of a company that wants to set up an industrial site in a suburban area. It faces online citizen mobilization, fueled by rumors, approximations, or distorted information about environmental risks. Internally, there is a strong temptation to want to "correct" these statements with technical data or official denials.
But in a context where trust is fragile, this strategy can be counterproductive. It gives the impression that the company is denying concerns rather than taking them seriously. Worse still, it can reinforce polarization and validate, in the minds of those who oppose the project, the idea that there is "something to hide."
Conversely, organizing a sincere listening mechanism—public meetings, independent mediators, transparency about areas of uncertainty—shows that the company is not seeking to impose its version of events, but rather to engage in dialogue. This involves accepting disagreement, acknowledging competing narratives, and responding to them in a way that is not defensive. There is also nothing to prevent you from communicating this approach in your public communications.
In short, even when faced with misleading or biased narratives, the effective response is not only informative, it is relational. It is not the truthfulness of an argument that convinces, but the perceived legitimacy of the person making it. Andthis legitimacy is built over time, through listening, consistency, and recognition of fears, even if they are unfounded.
Navigate rather than control
The field of action cannot be fully possessed or predicted. It must be experienced, navigated, and negotiated. For communicators and decision-makers, this requires an attitude of active humility: observing without projecting, dialoguing without manipulating, and adjusting without compromising strategic integrity. The field is not a map. It is alive. It deserves to be engaged with, not skimmed over. By adopting this integrative approach, communications professionals and decision-makers can better navigate a complex environment, anticipate future challenges, and foster authentic and lasting relationships with their stakeholders.
By Ekedi Kotto Maka