In Neuchâtel, should a distant project already be explained in concrete terms?
In microtechnology, watchmaking and precision microelectronics, announcing a transformation does not mean that the conditions for implementing it are already being discussed. The management question is specific: how can a project that is still some way off be presented without confusing support for its objective with agreement on its implementation?
What the literature establishes
Nira Liberman and Yaacov Trope (1998, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) show experimentally that desirability and feasibility considerations carry different weights depending on a decision’s temporal distance. For the distant future, participants give relatively greater weight to desirability; for the near future, to feasibility. Endorsing a purpose from a distance therefore does not warrant assuming the same assessment once practical requirements become salient.
The mechanism: distance favours abstraction
Yaacov Trope and Nira Liberman (2010, Psychological Review) offer a theoretical synthesis of research on psychological distance: things that seem distant tend to be represented more abstractly. A presentation focused on “why change” fits this level of representation, whereas “how to proceed” draws more heavily on implementation details. This mechanism offers one possible explanation for the gap between early enthusiasm and more difficult discussions as deployment approaches.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that objectives should be communicated at launch and constraints left for later. Yet these studies do not demonstrate that this is the best sequence for managing an industrial project. A late objection may reflect renewed attention to the means required, rather than resistance to change or inconsistency within teams. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot promise
The experiments cited are not a trial of organisational communication in Neuchâtel businesses, and the theoretical synthesis provides no optimal messaging schedule. Nor do they establish that adding operational details to an announcement consistently improves execution. Professional expertise, technical dependencies and available resources still need to be examined separately.
A practical check in Neuchâtel
As part of SHR’s “Communication” programme, one possible exercise is to prepare two presentations of a future process or equipment change: one sets out the purpose, while the other adds the implementation conditions already known and those still awaiting validation. In a Neuchâtel microtechnology, watchmaking or precision microelectronics business, randomly assign participants from comparable professional backgrounds to the two versions, then ask each person to state the objective they retained and the conditions they consider unresolved. Compare the proportion of responses that correctly report the objective and identify at least one unresolved condition actually mentioned, using a scoring guide established before the exercise. This check measures what the presentation makes accessible to its recipients, not their lasting support or the project’s future success. To go further: explore the Communication training in Neuchâtel in the canton of Neuchâtel, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Communication in Neuchâtel
- communication
- Neuchâtel
- research
- training neuchâtel