This blog is about the relationship between organizations and the people who work for them. And, it’s dedicated to the millions of people around the world who go to work every day wanting to do a great job.

Archive for June, 2010

“Always look on the bright side …”

by Deborah Hinton

Well no, not always.  Sometimes it’s just the wrong thing to do.  A lesson I hope the staff at Planet BP — an online, in-house British Petroleum  journal – learned this week.

You can imagine the challenge the BP internal communication team has.  You can picture them gathered in a room with their other communication colleagues looking for something positive to report to their employees.  Something that would uplift and motivate them.

And, so it is not too surprising to hear as The Wall Street Journal reported that “… a “BP reporter” dispatched to Louisiana managed to paint … [a rosey]…picture of the disaster…  “Much of the region’s [nonfishing boat] businesses — particularly the hotels — have been prospering because so many people have come here from BP and other oil emergency response teams.” Indeed, one tourist official in a local town makes it clear that “BP has always been a very great partner of ours here…We have always valued the business that BP sent us.””

The Planet BP story shows yet again that the BP communications team does not understand what is on the minds and in the hearts of people they are trying to reach and connect to.  Can you imagine a Tylenol internal newsletter reporting on the positive impact of their disaster on Tylenol container makers?  What is BP thinking?

Ragan Communication picked up the story.   Their conclusion: “Now, more than ever, BP’s communication efforts—internal and external—require transparency.”

But, the problem here isn’t transparency.  The BP article was accurate and transparent.  And it is definitely propaganda.  It is “disingenuous” and manipulative.

Why is that?  As I have said elsewhere, you can’t fool Mother Nature and you can’t fool employees.  And, I’m sure this article didn’t fool BP employees.

This isn’t the time.  There’s nothing at this stage that is good about what it happening in the Gulf.  And BP employees know it maybe better than anybody.

So what kind of employee communications do they want?  My guess is that BP employees want to know what the company is doing to clean up the mess from an insider point of view.  And they want to know what the company is doing to ensure that a disaster like this can never happen again.

And, they want communications that help them feel confident in their leadership again.  And, that build pride in their  work and the company they work for.

This story misses on all counts.  Manipulative communication – internal or external – always destroys relationship.

Sometimes looking on the bright side is just wrong.  This is one of those times.

Tags: , , , , ,

Deborah Hinton Thursday, June 24th, 2010
Permalink Communication, Corporate communication, Culture, Internal communication No Comments

Random Posts:

Getting grassroots

by Deborah Hinton

This week I’ve spent a lot of time with people who are part of grassroots movements of one sort or another.  And, I started to think about whether there was anything we can learn from grassroots movements like these that are making important and fundamental societal and environmental change?

It started last Friday with a fabulous evening – the Equitas host family dinner – spent with 3 of the 130 Human Rights educators who are here in Montreal for the International Human Rights Training Program. A Cambodian working on a peace and reconciliation program in a world where some citizens fear reprisals in the wake of Khmer Rouge convictions.  A Brazilian Human Rights lawyer who devotes time to an NGO working on local Human Rights issues.  And a children’s rights activist from The Gambia.  Each of them committed to changing their society from the bottom-up.  They come here to learn.  They will go home to share and act.  And they will change their world one action, one person at a time.

Then, because I have a crazy idea of building a rooftop garden – my field of dreams – on our Church hall, I’ve started meeting local people in the community who are working on related projects.   They are working on food security, urban farming, creating a sustainable university campus and greening the downtown.   They are students at Concordia who are piloting a sustainable business growing herbal tea to supply a student run and operated tea shop at the Loyola campus.   They are professionals working with local action groups to green some of the most debilitated parts of the downtown.  There’s one young man who went to jail for an action he took to change a regulation in The Plateau.  And guess what they did.  And, they are profs and grad students working on urban farming projects.  It’s amazing.  They are changing our urban landscape one planter at a time.  It is amazing what’s going on just outside our door.

What do these movements have in common?

  • They are “natural and spontaneous” movements
  • They are driven by passion for the ‘cause’.
  • They operate outside of “traditional power structures”
  • They use “traditional power structures” to raise awareness and funds.
  • They rely on informal networks to share information and resources.
  • Their projects start small and local but with the clear intention of leading to big and sustainable change.
  • They pilot and learn and share and pilot again.
  • They build pride in the work and the community.

What do you think?  Is there anything we can learn from grassroots movements that we can apply to institutional change initiatives?

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Deborah Hinton Friday, June 18th, 2010
Permalink Change Management, Culture No Comments

Random Posts:

Waffle words

by Deborah Hinton

“I’ve challenged our team to end this year at the No. 1 [sales] position in the marketplace.  If that doesn’t happen. . . my thoughts are simple:  If you’re the most profitable No. 2, it may be a better position in the marketplace.”

Yes, this is a reported quote from a real executive: Kevin Williams, the new CEO of GM Canada, at a press breakfast yesterday.  Do you have any idea what he was trying to say?  I didn’t so I asked a handful of professional friends what they thought.

In general they did not have a clue what this CEO was trying to say though one person actually thought it was a veiled threat of downsizing directed at employees.  And, they all gave a kind of resigned sigh and shrug after they’d thought about it for a few seconds.  It’s just not that unusual in the business world to read or hear statements like this.

So, in the tradition of this blog, this is less about GM and more about what it may reveal about the challenges institutions – especially public institutions – and their leaders face when their executives are out talking to the media or industry analysts.

Any of you who have worked close to a CEO knows that a team of people probably worked on this ‘positioning’ for weeks.  So it’s generally not for lack of expert advice and support.   And, it is highly unlikely that the whole event including this statement wasn’t scripted from beginning to end.  Even so:

  • The statement is unclear – Our goal is to be No 1 in sales or No 2 in sales but No 1 in profit? Why isn’t it No 1 in sales and profit?
  • The statement is pretty tentative – We might or might not make No 1.  Why?  Is it our strategy or our team?  We don’t know what the best position in the market is – No 1 in sales or No 2 in sales and No 1 in profit?  Is that because we think our competitors will have to buy the No 1 in sales position?

So, what is going on?  Why waffle?  Why not take a stand and clearly state the goal:

  • “We will be No. 1 in profit by the end of the year”?   In that case, you’d need to signal to investors that you’re also planning for growth.
  • “We will be No. 1 in sales by the end of the year”?  In this case you’d want to signal to investors that you won’t achieve the growth in sales at all costs.

So, why all this signalling?  Why wouldn’t you just state the goal completely and clearly.  Well, you need to give yourselves a little leeway, a little gray zone.   Despite all the talk after the economic meltdown in 2008 big investors are still focused on the short-term.  The next quarter is only 3 months away…  And even for potentially decisive, bold and imaginative leaders the risk of a fickle and volatile market is just too high.

And, that leaves you and me and 10s of 1,000s of customers and employees [and potential customers and employees] scratching our heads and wondering what our  business leaders are smoking?  Is it any wonder employees and customers don’t trust big Corporate?

What do you think?  And, perhaps even more importantly, if you agree with me, what can we do to change the game?

Tags: , , , ,

Deborah Hinton Thursday, June 17th, 2010
Permalink CEO, Corporate communication, Culture, External communication, Management No Comments

Random Posts:

“Chevy”: Going, going… well, not quite

by Deborah Hinton

This summer will you might “See the USA in your Chevrolet?” but you wouldn’t be “Driving your Chevy to the levy” if GM had their way.

Earlier this week, the New York Times reported on a memo GM sent to Chevy employees in Detroit.  The message was clear.  Stop saying “Chevy”.  From now on their beloved product will only be called Chevrolet.

“We’d ask that whether you’re talking to a dealer, reviewing dealer advertising, or speaking with friends and family, that you communicate our brand as Chevrolet moving forward,” said the memo.

The logic: consolidated and consistent branding.  One product.  One name.  No nicknames.

What?

Why would a company with the brand experience of GM want to try and reverse out of a nearly 100 year love affair between Americans and the “Chevy”? And, how could they think they could?  Chevrolet “… continues to hold its position as General Motors’ highest-selling brand to the present day, with “Chevrolet” or “Chevy” being at times synonymous with GM.”   It’s “…one of the world’s best-known, longest-lived product nicknames.”

And, how could a company with the history and size of GM think that a memo like this would stay ‘inside’?

Just 3-days after the memo leaked and increasing public pressure, the company reportedly “…called the memo “a rough draft” and “a bit of fun.”  And, “…explained that there would be no “massive change of direction.”

What do you think ?  A clumsy attempt at a viral campaign?

Tags: , ,

Deborah Hinton Saturday, June 12th, 2010
Permalink Corporate communication, External communication, Internal communication No Comments

Random Posts:

Are we really in a social media wasteland?

by Deborah Hinton

I don’t know, maybe it’s just been a strange couple of weeks, but I’m starting to think that employee communications is a vast social media wasteland.  At the very best, we’re nowhere near the “garden-of-Eden”-promise of these tools.

With the exception of one very interesting conversation with Rex Lee at RIM about their plans for “drinking their own champagne” and the occasional case study it seems to me we aren’t making much progress.

Shel Holtz is still making the case he’s been making forever against blocking.  Not blocking is so basic that it’s pretty discouraging to think that more than half of organizations still do not allow, never mind encourage, access to social media.

And over the past few weeks, I’ve been reading about and speaking to people whose organizations are doing amazing things using social media externally.  And, after a little investigating discover that there’s little institutionally-driven and supported use of social media inside these same organizations.  In other words, these organizations have created a powerful b2b strategies based on Web 2.0 and social media while their employees still can’t access Facebook from their desks.  And, they are still getting a flood of one way corporate and departmental communications by e-mail and or posted on their Intranet 1.0, punctuated by the occasional video conference or virtual town hall.

That doesn’t mean that person-by-person employees aren’t microblogging for work using StatusNet [full disclosure Evan’s a friend], or project-by-project managers aren’t implementing wikis and blogging, or department-by-department that teams aren’t using YouTube to post training videos.  It just means that I’m not seeing or hearing about too many integrated internal and external social media strategies.

Why aren’t these smart customer-focused organizations being as smart about their employees?  Has it just been a bad couple of weeks, or are you seeing what I’m seeing?

Tags: , , , , ,

Deborah Hinton Friday, June 11th, 2010
Permalink Corporate communication, External communication, Internal communication No Comments

Random Posts:

What makes a good code of conduct?

by Deborah Hinton

Virtually every organization of any size has a written code of conduct.  I’d really never thought about them much but, in the course of doing research for two posts for this blog I’ve ended up checking out Rio Tinto’s, British Petroleum’s and the Canadian Forces among others.

I was reminded that a good code of conduct is about more than the content of a written code.  It’s about “the way we do things around here”.   It’s about the behaviours employees see at work every day.  It’s about the institutional stories that are told both formally and informally.

That said, all this often starts with a written code.  So, here are some preliminary thoughts on what I think makes a good code of conduct:

  1. It’s written to help all employees behave in a way that is consistent with the authentic values of the organization and in line with national and international laws and regulations.
  2. It’s written from an employee’s point of view and not just the organization’s.  The Code is about more than maintaining the organization’s reputation.  It’s about employee pride in their organization, their team and their own work.
  3. It’s “virtually universal in … application”.  There’s no guessing about who the code applies to [all executives, managers, non-managers, business partners].  No guessing about when the code applies or doesn’t.  No gray zone.  No exceptions.
  4. It clearly defines acceptable actionable behaviours and operating practices. It is written simply and is easy to understand.  Plain English.  No management speak or legalese.
  5. The number of behaviours are relatively few, easy to remember and act on.  The consequences – both positive and negative – for the institution and the individual are clear.
  6. It includes relevant scenarios and mini-cases that bring the values and the behaviours to life for employees and can be used as the basis for discussion.
  7. It is supported by a process[earlier post]. that ensures employees are introduced to the code of conduct on day-one as part of their orientation to the organization and their work.  There are regular opportunities to discuss the implications of the code in their day-to-day decisions and actions with their immediate supervisor and to ask questions, provide feedback.  There are ways to report suspected violations without fear.

What do you think?  Is this list complete?

Do you have any examples that you think are particularly good?  Why are they good?

When was the last time your executive spent time thinking about the code of conduct and its implications in terms of their day-to-day work?

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Deborah Hinton Tuesday, June 8th, 2010
Permalink Communication, Corporate communication, Culture, Internal communication 1 Comment

Random Posts:

Sometimes the words do matter

by Deborah Hinton

Twice in the course of preparing posts I’ve found myself looking at Codes of Conduct [the first time].  In writing my post earlier this week, I found myself reading the Canadian Forces Code of Conduct.  What I found was certainly not what I expected.  It is clearly written, and behaviour focused.  It’s virtually free of jargon and legal language.

So, today I thought I’d go back and check out British Petroleum’s Code of Conduct and compare to see if there’s anything we can learn.

Before I go any further, let me say that BPs Code of Conduct is pretty representative of most Corporate Codes of Conduct I’ve ever seen.  Neither better or worse.    Obviously the Canadian Forces are not in business.  They have 1000s of years of military experience behind their Code of Conduct.    And, I think it’s because of this that the following comparison may be instructive.  Here’s what I found [italics are mine]:

British Petroleum

Canadian Forces

Our commitment to integrity

Focus on the company and feels like PR.  What does integrity look like?

Code of Conduct for CF Personnel

Focus on employee behaviour and feels like a practical tool.  Conduct is easy to picture.

Length and general description:
84 pages describing topic areas and including Q&A 28 pages + 66 pages with behaviour-based lesson plans = 95 pages
Management speak and jargon Plain English

Message from the top:
Yes – letter from the group chief executive No

Table of contents
Yes No

Introduction
10 pages on “Our commitment to integrity”Presents context , describes “Your personal commitment”, and describes how to ask questions and raise concerns 3 pages on scope, why, the Law of Armed Conflict, etcPresents context for the Code of Conduct

 

Organization
6 topics [e.g. Employees], supported by 21 sub-topics [e.g.Fair treatment and equal employment opportunity] 11 very concrete behaviours

Why a code of conduct?:
The BP code of conduct stands for a fundamental BP commitment – to comply with all applicable legal requirements and the high ethical standards set out in this code – wherever we operate. To help us meet this commitment, the code defines what BP expects of its businesses and people regardless of location or background. It provides both guidance in key areas and references to more detailed standards, instructions and processes for further direction. Operational missions often require CF members to make decisions under considerable stress and in times of confusion. Moreover, the course of action one elects to make during operations can have serious consequences. Decisions must often be made very quickly. Compliance with this simple Code of Conduct helps to ensure that split second decisions are consistent with the Law of Armed Conflict and Canadian law.

Who’s it for?:
All employees must adhere to the principles and requirements contained in this code and should consult the code for guidance when acting on behalf of BP. This publication briefly outlines the Code of Conduct applicable to all Canadian

 

Forces personnel taking part in all military operations other than Canadian domestic operations.

What’s in and what’s out?:
The code cannot describe every law, regulation or BP requirement that may apply to you. The company has additional standards, instructions and processes to further implement the principles in the code. Make sure you know the rules that do apply to you.Employees need to figure out which ones apply. The CF Code of Conduct consists of eleven rules which capture the essence of the law of Armed Conflict. This Code does not in any way replace or alter the existing treaties and conventions to which Canada is a party. Actually, it represents a summary of the Law of Armed Conflict. It is designed to assist you, your commanders and your fellow members of the armed forces to achieve legitimate military objectives while ensuring operations are carried out in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict. You must, therefore, know and faithfully comply with these eleven rules.The rules are all there.

Consequences for failure to comply?
Failure to do so is taken very seriously and may result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.

 

All head

 Failure to do so is contrary to the direction of your government; can adversely affect the successful completion of your military mission; dishonours you and your country; and ultimately can leave you or your subordinates open to prosecution.

 

Head and heart.  Calls on personal, professional and national pride.

What differences/similarities do you see?  What are the implications from a culture point of view? Is there anything we can learn?

How does your organizational Code of Conduct stack up?

Tags: , , , ,

Deborah Hinton Friday, June 4th, 2010
Permalink CEO, Communication, Culture, Internal communication No Comments

Random Posts:

Actions speak louder than words

by Deborah Hinton

This week, British Petroleum [BP], under Tony Hayward’s leadership, failed to make any progress in stopping or even slowing the flood of oil in the Gulf of Mexico.  Five weeks after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil platform the crisis is now described as perhaps the largest man-made disaster in history.

In the same week, the Canadian military leader of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, Brigadier-General Daniel Ménard, was removed from his post after rumours of an affair with a soldier in his command.

The military responded quickly and unequivocally. Ménard is now back in Canada awaiting a hearing and potential court-martial.  The allegations alone were serious enough to remove him from his post.

Back at BP, Tony Hayward, continues to run the company despite:

  • The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon on April 20, 2010 that killed 11 people and began the uncontrolled oil spill in the Gulf
  • Rumours that the explosion happened because the company had not invested in a relatively inexpensive remote control shut off device due to budget constraints
  • The fact that the oil spill now threatens some of the most important and fragile ecosystems in North America along the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and Florida and the livelihood of millions of people.  Today, on the first day of hurricane season, the potential threat to people and the environment has just increased.  The current and potential costs are incalculable.
  • The lack of an actionable crisis plan. Now over 5 weeks later it is very clear that the company did not anticipate an accident of this magnitude or have plans in place. Every attempt [and there have been many] to stop the flow of oil is a new and so far failed experiment.
  • The fact that the direct costs to the company of responding to the spill is now reported to be at $1B
  • Today’s news that BPs stock plunged 17% – Investors will pay – and that the company’s very survival is at stake.   If this happens, over 80,000 employees and their families will be directly affected.  The direct social and economic costs to the supply chain and everyone in and around the communities where BP operates will be huge.

In the case of the Canadian Military morale may be affected by this revelation about a man they respected and trusted to lead in a critical and dangerous theatre of operation, but they will have no doubt that the institution values the lives of the people on the mission and in the communities they are there to protect over the image of the institution or the reputation of the commander.

What about the 80,000 employees at BP?

These are extreme examples, but I’d love to hear from you.  What actions are speaking louder than words in organizations you know?  What impact does that have?

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Deborah Hinton Tuesday, June 1st, 2010
Permalink CEO, Culture, Internal communication 1 Comment

Random Posts: