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.
Internal communication
Changing your point of view changes everything!
We’re busy. We’re very, very busy. We’re announcing new strategies. We’re launching refreshed brands and new identities. We’re introducing new values. We’re introducing new products and services. We’re up-sizing and downsizing and reorganizing. We’re changing processes and systems. We’re reducing costs and increasing investment. We’re changing our culture to be more innovative, collaborative, flexible, [insert other]. We want our employees to be engaged, loyal, and proud of the organization they work for so we’re “communicating” and “communicating” and “communicating”.
Changing your point of view is an important source of insight and understanding. Today, I’m wondering if this isn’t what it all looks like from an employees point of view.
Random Posts:
“The new ad cost us millions mate, millions…”
A little fun, from down under, that takes a look at the employee side of this equation.
So wrong on so many levels, and yet the main point is just too right to be really funny!
Random Posts:
A case of “internal communication deficit disorder”.
This week a Canadian University was diagnosed with internal communication deficit disorder. Though not rare, the disorder is almost always fatal if left untreated.
Concordia University is an institution I know well. It’s 45,000 students studying in over “300 undergraduate and 200 graduate programs” are at the centre of the downtown community I work and live in. I studied and graduated with my MBA from there; began studies for a PhD there; taught there; consulted there; worked with a student intern and volunteers from there on an urban farming project. And it’s an institution that has seemed sick at the core for some time; perhaps even further back than the Fabrikant murders in 1992.
Last year, for the second time in 3 years the President left before the end of their contract. After considerable bad press and internal finger pointing, the interim President, Dr Frederick Lowy, asked an external committee to review the governance of the university. This week, Concordia University received the report “Strengthening governance at Concordia: A collective challenge“. The review pulls no punches in reporting the situation and recommending changes to all aspects of governance.
Among other things, the review panel reported that the university was “…blatantly deficient internal communications“… had created “…a lot of distrust, often bordering on mutual contempt, between the various communities of the University.” And that “…the chorus of negative response [to the most recent President’s departure], the depth and even the fury of that response could only have arisen in a context where long simmering governance and internal communication problems between the Board and the University community, to say nothing of other outstanding matters, had neither been addressed nor resolved.” The report reflects my experience and understanding of the good [and there is a lot of good there], bad and the ugly of Concordia.
Today, the University has a decision to make: To take the recommended course of treatment for internal communication deficit disorder or not; to act on the letter and spirit of the report and its 38 recommendations or not.
If they do, it won’t be either a quick or easy recovery but recover they will. Concordia has an opportunity to change how they do things. To become a place where the board, faculty, administration, and students work together to create a unique and compelling experience for those who want to study and learn, to teach and do research, to invent and explore new ideas. In the end, this report and its recommendations are less about fixing something that is broken and more about supporting Concordia in becoming the great institution it has always had the potential to be.
As a neighbour, alumnus and friend that’s my hope.
Random Posts:
Scale & proportion in communications
"The Fisherman," Saul Steinberg, from The Labyrinth
I think internal communications design at its best is compositional. So, that takes me to the arts to see if there are things I can learn there.
Scale and proportion are two important considerations for the artist or architect. Should they be considerations for those of us who design communications plans? Scale refers to the size of the work. Proportion refers to how we see elements within the work in relationship to each other.
It’s easy in the heat of the moment or the “big” announcement to lose sight of what really matters to our colleagues in different functions and at different levels across our organizations. Not all decisions and announcements are created equal from the point of view of those we’re trying to reach and engage. Not everything is as big to “them” as it is to us.
Designing a communication approach that is the right proportion and scale for the news we’re sharing is as important as any other aspect of communication plan we’re building. Overdoing something that isn’t all that relevant to employees or failing to communicate something that is will lead to equally bad outcomes: Confusion and erosion of trust.
Thinking about the scale and proportion of the communication from the receiver’s point of view helps.
- Scale – the number and variety of communication channels, the frequency and duration of the communication, the effort level to engage people in a conversation
- Proportion – how evident we want to make the communication in context of everything else that is going on organizationally at any point in time and over time, and within the communication itself what is most relevant/important for different employees to ‘get’.
Next time you’re about to communicate a ‘big’ new corporate decision, business strategy, human resources policy, technology change, acquisition, or quarterly financial results, think about what this news really means for the people you’re communicating it to. What impact – direct or indirect – will it have on them? What do you want them to know, feel or do as a result of your communicating with them?
And once you have the answers to these questions, think a little bit more like an artist, design a communication that is right in terms of scale and proportion.
Random Posts:
Celebrating failure
Engineers without borders publishes something called a failure report. They “…believe that success in development is not possible without taking risks and innovating – which inevitably means failing sometimes.” And, they go on to say that they “…also believe that it’s important to publicly celebrate these failures, which allows us to share the lessons more broadly and create a culture that encourages creativity and calculated risk taking.”
Talk about missing the point. The organizational objective isn’t failure. The organizational objective is learning. Celebrating failure isn’t the same as celebrating learning.
And for me it raises a question. How is it that good ideas like organizationally learning becomes something that ‘glorifies’ failure. Is it really so hard to learn from our organizational failures?
For two other perspectives, more individually than institutionally focused check out:
- Steven Parker’s post “Are you part of the cult of failure?”
- Bill Jensen’s post “I F@#ked Up: Big Time… Introspection is Hard!”
Random Posts:
Be strategic! Get curious.
How many times have you been told that your role in communications or human resources needs to be more strategic? After all, you want to “be at the table”. You want to be a ‘business partner’. You want to be more than an order taker. And you can’t do that unless you can add something of value to the conversation that otherwise wouldn’t be there. Be strategic!
I think we can all agree that being strategic is more about looking ahead and “big picture” than being stuck in today, reacting, responding and focused on tools and tactics.
But what does that really mean? And, how do you get there?
Michael and I did a workshop a few years ago – 9 steps to successful internal communications. Steps 1 and 2 focused on understanding what success looked like from an institutional perspective and the implications for internal communications. The idea was to give participants a fresh way of looking at their organizations that would position them to be more strategic. The push back in the room was incredible. The people in the group – mostly senior HR and/or communications professionals – just couldn’t see how this thinking was going to help them be more successful. After all the strategists publish the strategy. What else is there to understand?
Over the years, I’ve noticed that most HR and communications professionals don’t take the time they need to really understand their institutions and those events, levers, moments that are most critical for organizational success. We don’t ask the questions that will help us really understand where and how our functions can add the most value.
Why is that? And how can we develop that curiosity as a profession?
Without it, being strategic will be as elusive as ever.
Random Posts:
Do we know what we’re doing?
I’m just back after an “official” training run. Those of you who know me, know I am passionate about chiwalking and running. Though a “late in life” runner I came to believe what my trainer told me, that running is “perfect freedom”. It took three years to find any level of enjoyment, but I did and was getting quite confident and competent.
Last June due to unrelated injuries Michael and I stopped running. It started as a short break. We continued to chiwalk regularly and at a pretty fast pace – racking in many kilometres up, over and around Mont Royal during the fall, winter and spring. In fact our winter chiwalks made the winter quite wonderful no matter what the conditions – rain, snow, sleet, sunny, cloudy, -10C, -30C. They are all about focus and alignment two of my favourite things.
Now, almost a year later we realize that even though our chiwalks have no doubt kept us relatively fit, they aren’t giving us the same results as chirunning. Over the spring we’ve integrated a few short 20 minute runs, but without any real discipline [and to be honest mostly downhill – small cheat]. This morning was different. We followed lesson 1 of Danny Dreyer’s training guide for beginners, a 12-week program to prepare for a 10K. We went for a relatively flat [not my favourite, since I like the variation of trail running] 5 minutes on and 1 minute off chirun repeated 6 times.
Big lesson: If you want to build and maintain capacity then there’s only one way to do it and that’s with discipline and practice.
You’ll not be surprised to hear that this experience has made me think about whether and how we can achieve an adequate level of communication mastery in our organizations?
Relationships are fundamental to organizations. Organizations exist based on the assumption that working together we can do something we can’t do alone. Given that human relationships without communication are impossible to imagine then communication mastery, must be a critical factor for success of any organization. But do we think about communication in that way?
I don’t think we do. We may make the odd nod to individual development, but institutionally I think we make the assumption that since virtually all employees can speak, write and hear then as an institution you’re communicating. This of course is simply not true. Any more than making the assumption if you can walk, you can run is true. [Or if you can walk you’re walking in an aligned and efficient way that will protect your body [that’s another story].] It takes training, discipline and practice to build and maintain adequate levels of skill and capacity.
So, what would communication mastery look like? Not just for your employees or managers but for your institution as a whole? What are the institutional benefits of achieving that level of mastery? Where are you today in relationship to that level of mastery? What actions would you need to put in place to get there? And, how do you create the right conditions for achieving it?
I think these are fundamental institutional questions. Shouldn’t we be thinking about getting this conversation going? Are you ready?
Random Posts:
When the dog doesn’t bark…
You may recall Sherlock Holmes in Silver Blaze where he describes how he’s able to solve the mystery as a result of “… the ”curious incident of the dog in the night-time”:
Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.””
What does this have to do with employee communication? Well, quite a lot I think.
Today, I’ve been catching up on e-mail after over a week away and I read an interesting e-mail from a friend of mine who is serving in Afghanistan with the US Air Force. He writes thoughtful and provoking letters on a pretty regular basis and his mindful missives are always compelling. He’s definitely not what you’d imagine as your usual guy at war.
This e-mail was especially interesting because he described what happened on his base in Kabul in the hours leading up to the announcement that Bin Laden had been killed. Specifically, “…we were ready for the kick-off of the morning update meeting where everything in the AOR (Area of Responsibility) is covered – this is a computer briefing so you just log into the site and watch-listen. Briefings at this meeting are given on everything from what is being built in the AOR to the current threat level. It always starts on time, except for today. Turning on the TV to kill some time clued us into what was going on. The nation was on stand-by awaiting the President’s “Special” announcement late night in the States but early the next day here in Kabul. We could overhear people making comments about high level members receiving important calls (they didn’t mute the conference mic) – and then the media broke the story, Osama Bin Laden was dead and the U.S. was responsible.”
So, just like it was for Sherlock Holmes, these troops recognized there was a ‘curious incident’: not meeting when they’d come to expect their regular morning meeting. While communicators were busy working on positioning and timing for the announcement, the troops were already reading the signs and coming to their own, and surprisingly accurate, conclusions about what was going on. You can’t fool mother nature. And, it seems you can’t fool employees.
Sometimes what we don’t do speaks more powerfully and accurately than what we do do.
My question: How can knowing this help us be better at institutional communication?
Random Posts:
The theory & reality of town halls
On a recent trip to Vermont Michael and I were listening to the Vermont Public Radio president on a town hall with their listeners. And I noticed something. It just didn’t work. The president listened and chatted with those that called in. The conversation seemed more like ‘she says’/’he says’ than a real conversation. And, at the end of the show the president closed nicely and I realized she hadn’t specifically responded with an action to a single listener’s feedback.
It seemed a far cry from Obama’s town halls. Or what I’ve heard from my friends who live in Vermont, a state that may have invented the town hall, about the meetings that their very small town, Newfane, runs regularly to discuss all matter of issues and opportunities facing the community. Or my recent experience attending a town hall for a “programme particulier d’urbanisme” that has the potential to change the face of downtown Montreal. These are lively discussions. Both the politicians and the electorate care about the issues being discussed. And at their best there’s clear action to be taken at the end.
And yet, the Vermont Public Radio town hall seems a familiar scenario for those of us doing internal communications. So what’s going on?
Employee town halls after all are supposed to humanize organizations. They create one of the few opportunities for interaction and discussion between our executives, managers and employees. So, why don’t they generate meaningful discussion? Why aren’t they more lively? Gosh why don’t we even get questions, unless we plant them [manipulation – for another blog] more than half the time? Why does it seem more like a shareholder meeting rather than a scrum?
Here are some thoughts:
| Political town halls | Employee town halls |
| It’s a democracy | It’s not a democracy |
| Audience has the power | Speaker has the power |
| Politicians to listen and defend their position | Executives to talk and assert their position |
| There’s something to discuss that people care and want to discuss | There may or may not be anything to discuss and employees are ‘mandated’ to participate |
| There’s an opportunity to influence decisions | Little or no real opportunity to influence; decisions have already been taken or |
Given these differences, what can we learn? Can we re-frame the Corporate town hall to achieve our goals of humanizing, engaging and creating meaningful conversations that further the business? Love to hear what you think.
Random Posts:
The black hole & the employer brand
Human resource departments talk a lot about the employer brand; the ultimate reflection of the employee experience of the brand. And given the growing challenge of getting the best people, it’s something that all business leaders are beginning to worry about.
So, imagine my surprise to read that “nearly 30 percent of executives surveyed by search firm Korn/Ferry International said job applicants aren’t being treated respectfully by potential employers”! These executives report the following experiences:
- No confirmation that their application arrived
- Interviews that turn out to have been set up for other candidates
- Interviews that have been set up for the wrong job
- Interviewers who are under prepared
- No follow-up after interviews
- No answers to e-mails or phone messages
- A big black hole.
This isn’t any old recruitment. This is executive recruitment. Presumably people who have more money and influence than most. Makes you pretty sure that it’s a lot worse for your average job seeker.
We know bad news travels faster than good news. We know the value of the brand experience as an employee or as a customer. It’s pure gold. And the erosion of the brand experience a business killer. So, how could we be going so wrong in what seems like such a simple matter – basic courtesy?
Could it be because of overworked employees? Sucky values? Bad training? Too many files? Too few hours? Not the right tools to do the job? Or all of the above?
I don’t know, but as communicators we’re all about helping our organizations [and their employees] build strong positive relationships with all our stakeholders, so I think it’s something worth looking into and taking action on. The employer brand starts here.
Sign up for mailing list
Recent Posts
- Grey zones are costing your organization big time
- Saying goodbye to jargon
- Don’t leave them laughing
- A master class with Ed Sullivan
- Innovation & collaboration: Strategic priorities or not?
- The truth about the number 1 fear
- Want to know the secret to writing a great speech?
- Connecting for big business benefits
Authors
Recent posts
- Grey zones are costing your organization big time
- Saying goodbye to jargon
- Don’t leave them laughing
- A master class with Ed Sullivan
- Innovation & collaboration: Strategic priorities or not?
- The truth about the number 1 fear
- Want to know the secret to writing a great speech?
- Connecting for big business benefits
- Staying in touch with reality
- “Just hire a Dalek”
Categories
Archives
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010