Why I Never Aim for Perfection in Communication

Tanya Pikula:

“Perfect is the enemy of good” is one of those sayings that gets repeated so often it risks becoming meaningless. But it’s worth repeating in the context of communications: in comms, perfection is the enemy of progress altogether.

I hate the idea of perfection.

Communications is a profession built on agility. On any given day, we’re juggling multiple files, responding to evolving priorities, adjusting to new information, reacting to events outside the organization, and tailoring messages for different audiences. Context changes constantly. What was the right message yesterday may need a completely different approach tomorrow.

Unlike some professions, communicators rarely own the final product from beginning to end. Our work is deeply connected to programs, policies, operational realities, leadership decisions, stakeholder feedback, and countless other factors outside our control. We can write what we think is the perfect message, but by the time it moves through reviews and approvals, multiple people may have shaped it. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; it’s just reality of our field.

So, within this context, what’s the point of chasing perfection? In my experience, this slows people down and causes unnecessary stress. It makes teams more rigid at precisely the moment they need flexibility.

The communicators who have the greatest impact aren’t the ones endlessly fine-tuning every sentence in search of some mythical flawless product. They’re the ones who know how to move quickly, make sound decisions, adapt when circumstances change, and get the work out the door when it needs to happen.

Most of the time, “good and on time” is far more valuable than “perfect and too late.”

The obsession with perfection becomes even more problematic when it shows up in leadership. Leaders who demand a constant 10 out of 10 from their teams aren’t setting a high standard, but creating an environment where people become fearful of taking risks and hesitant to move work forward without endless rounds of review.

I’ve actually experienced this firsthand. Years ago, I was part of a team that delivered a major campaign. We worked incredibly hard, collaborated across multiple partners, and ultimately achieved great results. The campaign generated strong media coverage, landed well with audiences, and avoided any significant issues.

After all that effort and success, the conversation from the leader focused almost entirely on what we could have done better.

Now, don’t get me wrong: reflection matters and every project offers lessons. It’s healthy to ask questions like: How could we have made the process smoother? Where were the bottlenecks? What should we do differently next time?

But when that’s the only focus, what is the point? If every success is immediately overshadowed by criticism, teams learn that nothing is ever good enough. Eventually, people become discouraged and stop bringing forward new ideas. Enter paralysis.

I have never been interested in hunting down every minor error someone makes. We are human beings and I know that as we manage competing priorities some mistakes will happen.

What matters is not whether an individual mistake occurred but whether there is a pattern. If someone receives constructive feedback, understands the issue, and adjusts course, that’s growth. What concerns me is when the same issue keeps surfacing despite support, coaching, and opportunities to improve. 

At the end of the day, communications is about creating understanding, building trust, helping people take action, and delivering value when it matters most. It’s dynamic whereas perfection is static. 

I’d rather have a team that’s curious, responsive, adaptable, and confident enough to move forward than one that’s frozen in pursuit of an impossible standard.

+++

Tanya Pikula, PhD is a strategic leader with a PhD in interdisciplinary research and over a decade of experience guiding communications and change across government and nonprofit sectors.