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.

Not all stakeholders are created equal. Now what?

Not all stakeholders are created equal.”  If you care about the experience of your brand – internally or externally – understanding this lesson is essential.  
Years ago I worked with the office of a global agency here in Montreal.   The single most important communication they had was around the work they got or didn’t get.  The impact of this news was not the same for all employees, clients, suppliers or competitors.  For simplicities sake let’s just look internally.
The news on a pitch comes in, most likely to the partner in charge or another senior member of the team that developed the proposal.  They learn that they either got it, or not. It’s either good news or bad.  Now what?
There are the partners in the local office.  And the partners and execs – peers and superiors – in the agency outside the local office.  There’s the team that worked directly on the pitch, sometimes for months.  There are those who’ve worked indirectly supporting the main team.  And there are those who didn’t have anything to do with it.
This client had no standard way of sharing this news. Employees reported not knowing what was going on.  They’d find out through grapevine or news releases… Or by watching for ebullience or despair on the faces of the partners. If they won the business, a partner  would email everyone to invite them to a celebration – from beer and chips to champagne and caviar depending on the size of the win.  It might be the first time the Montreal team that worked on the pitch heard about it.  If there were team members from other offices they’d find out through the grapevine.  If they lost the business the news would just trickle out.
In either scenario the agency lost the benefit of learning and team building.  And worse the bad news scenario created speculation, confusion and cynicism.  Employees knew that they weren’t trusted to handle the bad news. Leaders were afraid they’d have to answer tough questions and wouldn’t know how.
By working with the partners to understand that all employees are not created equal in relationship to this kind of news we were able to build a framework for this element of their strategy. No matter what the news, good or bad:
  • Partners would inform each other immediately – face-to-face or by text or by email – of the outcome.
  • Employees directly involved on the pitch, in the office and in other offices, would also be informed as quickly as possible and ideally in a face-to-face meeting [conference call or Skype if necessary because of the schedules of the partners] with a chance for them to learn the outcome and discuss the implications for the team.  This meeting would be relatively short.
  • Other employees – depending on the size and nature of the news and it’s implications – would either receive an e-mail [while the pitch team was in their meeting] inviting them to a small group meeting with their partner, or to gather with the pitch team for a celebration or mourning
  • Peers and colleagues outside the office would be informed as appropriate after that
  • The partners and pitch team would create opportunities for debriefing and learning within the days following the news.
The result. The partners gained confidence – they knew what they had to do and got better at delivering the bad news – were able to build trust relatively quickly.  This was only one small element of the work we did together, but by the end of my mandate there was a strong sense of one team building business momentum.
The approach was pretty simple, but it did mean thinking about the announcement from the point of view of different employees.  It also meant implementation with no exceptions or excuses.
YouTube Preview Image

Why you need to master the art of segmentation

People and relationships are at the core of all organizational strategies.

This means an adequately thorough and complete stakeholder analysis is key. If the stakeholder analysis is weak then so too is the strategy. And stakeholder analysis starts with adequate segmentation.

Segmentation doesn’t start with a list of generic stakeholders. It starts with a deep understanding of who will be impacted by what you are planning, saying, doing?  And how they will be impacted.

Seems so obvious, and yet it’s not.  In the past few weeks I was asked to pull together work of several other consultants to create an integrated strategic framework that would help identify gaps and overlaps in the work and thinking that had been done so far.

Communication was just one of 6 strategic priorities but every other priority had a significant communication component. Three consultants had already prepared three separate plans – media relations, government relations and fund development.

Each plan referred to their own key stakeholder, but not one of them adequately developed the segmentation. Instead, they were almost generic.

It’s a government relations plan so the target is government. No differentiation between Federal, provincial though both could impact the outcomes for this organization. No reference to which specific ministries. No differentiation between elected and non-elected politicians, or bureaucrats [senior and junior]. Even though each of these segments would have different and important impact on the work of this organization.

None of the plans did any more than a superficial analysis of this already thin segmentation. Instead of really thinking about what the client organization was trying to achieve in relationship to each of the segmented stakeholders, again, plans fell back into generic descriptions and no real analysis.

Even cutting an orange into segments takes some thought and skill…

YouTube Preview Image

And, the sad thing is, this failure to segment stakeholders and do some pretty fundamental analysis is not unusual.

The result. Bland planning and a focus on tools and tactics.

No strategy at all.

If you want to be strategic, then developing mastery in the art of segmentation is a good place to start.

 

 

 

 

 


The single most important question you can ever ask

As you know if you follow this blog, one of the things I think leaders and communication professionals should do more of is to ask good questions; to be curious.

So, what’s a good question?  Today I’m going to share with you what I think is not just a good question it may be the best question:  ”Why?”

Yes the question is: “Why?”  And if you’re asking me “Why?” Here’s why.

The answer to the question “Why?” will get to motivation.  And motivation in leadership and communication is everything. By asking “Why?” until you get to the motivation you will find that the answer is either to:

  • Make something go away? Problem-solve.
  • Bring something into being? Create.

Problem-solving and creating are fundamentally different.  They have different energy.  Creating will always allow you to build momentum toward the thing you’re creating.  Problem-solving will not.

“Why?” you ask. Well that’s a very good question….  For leaders and communicators knowing the difference is fundamental.

YouTube Preview Image

 

 


“We didn’t know…” Now what?

Two very different stories, and the same response – “We didn’t know…” – were in the news this week.

The first was very close to home.  Just down the street, in fact, where last week the “Truth and reconciliation committee national meeting” was being held here in Montreal and where victims of  the residential school system broke 150 years of ‘silence’ to tell their stories of mental, physical and sexual abuse. How could we not know?  And yet we didn’t. Now we do.

The second was very far from home and yet as close as your closet.  Nearly 400 workers at a textile factory in Rana Plaza near Dhaka, Bangladesh died when their building collapsed.  Numbers may grow even higher since it is estimated nearly  2000 people were believed to be inside on Wednesday morning when the building crashed in on itself and the people that worked there.  For a very compelling interview check out CBC Day 6].  How could companies not know that these health and safety violations were being perpetrated within their supply chain.  And yet they didn’t.  Now they do.  And so do we.

One thing that is true is that once you know you can’t go back and perhaps that’s the dilemma. That’s what makes it easier to look the other way?  Not to ask enough questions.

But, now that we do know there are two questions that we need to be answer:

  1. How could we not know?  How, where, and when did communication break down?
  2. Now we know, what needs to happen so these human rights violations never happen again? What role can communication play?
YouTube Preview Image

[For more on this see related posts:  Learning from the Vatican part 1, part 2, and part 3]

 


Worker health and safety and you

It’s a shocking fact that according to Canada’s health and safety website, “… every year work-related injuries and diseases cause nearly 1,000 deaths” in Canadian companies and organizations.  That is nearly 3 work related deaths per day!  That’s in a country with a relatively small population and well-publicised and enforced worker rights.

So, even though the two recent worker disasters in Bangladesh:

  • a fire killed at least 112 garment workers at Bangladesh’s Tazreen factory who were locked in
  • the building collapse at Rona Plaza that has reportedly killed nearly 400

The question remains what is the real cost of fast fashion and our seemingly insatiable demand for stuff? How many Bangladeshis are dying as a direct result of health and safety issues that could and should be changed?  We don’t know.  What we do know is that these deaths are avoidable.

Time to think about the impact of the story of stuff on workers…

YouTube Preview Image

What does health and safety and workers rights look like in your organization? Your supply chain?  What role can we, as leaders and professional communicators, do to change this very human disaster? 


Innovation. You gotta be a little bit crazy!

Looking back to an Apple ad from 1997 for a little inspiration.

YouTube Preview Image

Where are the “crazy ones” in your world? “The misfits? The rebels? The trouble makers? The square pegs in round holes? The ones who see things differently?” Where are the people crazy enough to change the world in your organization?

What are you doing as an institution to support and encourage their crazy world changing ideas?  If you’re looking for innovation, this may just be what it takes.


In search of great communicators

Have you ever asked yourself what a great communicator looks like in your organization?

Are there any?  If so,

  • Why are they great?
  • What characteristics do they have?
  • What impact do they have?
  • What can you learn from them?  What can the rest of the organization learn from them?

If not, why not? And what can you do about it.

Great communicators may just happen, but the ones I know are very disciplined about their communication.  It’s not something they pull out at the last minute – “Oh now I guess I better speak to my folks!” It’s something that is absolutely build into everything they do and how they do it.

What is your organization doing to build communication mastery? I’d love to talk.

YouTube Preview Image

 


Our preoccupation with innovation. Is it just “lipstick on a pig”?

I was walking through the McGill University campus the other day and noticed a poster that described the invention of the Kellogg cornflake. It reminded me  again of how chance has led to some of the most innovative creations of the past century: vulcanized rubber [think tires], Post-it notes, Teflon, mauve [yes, and a must read on this], the x-ray, superglue, stainless steel, and microwave ovens [for more]. But, there’s more than happenstance and chance or even serendipity, to these breakthrough events. There was the ‘accident’ and then there was insight.

Virtually every organization I know is trying to find ways to encourage and capitalize on innovation. Big and small, customer or operationally-focused innovation is the new ‘silver bullet’; a “key growth lever”.

What are they doing organizationally to increase the potential for ‘chance’ and insight? 

Well, they’re benchmarking.  They’re designing new workspaces to support innovation – atriums and agoras, open offices, whiteboard walls and basketball hoops. Mimicking the Google and Apple campuses in the hope that they will inspire new ways of thinking. They’re giving employees access to more and more collaborative tools and creating opportunities through internal innovation challenges.

But most of these same organizations – whether they are white collar knowledge workers or blue collar labourers – are designed to produce widgets. It’s the nature of the work and the day-to-day deliverables. The design of the overall business operation is more like a production line in a sausage factory than a research and development team in a laboratory.

YouTube Preview Image

Are we just “putting lipstick on a pig”? Or are these changes – especially in older traditional businesses – really delivering the promise?

 

 


Anatomy of an internal announcement. Top 3 lessons from Yahoo!

In the week since it was first announced, Yahoo!’s policy stopping remote work has created a firestorm focused on the policy and its implications for worker flexibility in general and the tech industry in particular.

So now, for something completely different, I think it’s time to take a closer look at what we can learn from the announcement itself. Here are my top 3 lessons:

#3. The headline matters.  ”YAHOO! PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION — DO NOT FORWARD”. Whatever happened to a subject line so that you know what the memo is about? Instead, here the title is: “Confidential”? Yeah maybe. “Proprietary”. Well isn’t everything that’s done on behalf of the company? “Do not forward.” Anyone who’s worked inside any organization knows this is a redflag to a bull. These legal ‘requirements’ make our institutional leaders less credible with every memo. They are virtually impossible to enforce and the consequences even if they could be are just not that clear.

Mistake #2. Don’t manipulate. The message itself was drafted using the “sandwich method”. You’ve all seen it before. Upbeat good news. Followed by the downbeat less good news. Followed by a little more upbeat good news. It assumes that people won’t be able to handle the news without softening the blow. It’s manipulative and everybody knows it. Manipulation kills relationship.

Now for the biggie…

Mistake #1. Make sure you know who your message is really for.  “Beginning in June, we’re asking all employees with work-from-home arrangements to work in Yahoo! offices.” This message isn’t relevant to most employees.  In fact, with over 14,000 employees, it turns out there are about 200 remote workers who will be directly affected.

That leaves 13,800 who received the memo and aren’t directly affected.  Of those, there’s a % who are already coming to work every day. This message is completely irrelevant to them except perhaps to make them feel a little smug or proud.

The rest, and there are by all accounts many at Yahoo!, who have taken advantage of the flexible working conditions by staying home for the “cable guy” too often need to know that their behaviour is no longer acceptable. This is a performance management issue.  And, it’s management who, for whatever reason, have not been held accountable. The focus for the communication, once you get beyond the 200 remote workers is management. And making sure they know they are responsible and accountable for their employees being onsite to work and giving them what they need – training, mentoring, support – to be successful.

Their memo, directed at 14,000 employees left virtually all of them wondering what it means for them and speculating with each other, their families, their friends and media online and off.

Now that’s a lesson we can all learn from.

YouTube Preview Image

 

 

 


Google Glass at work!?

There’s a lot of interest, OK hype, around Google Glass. Let’s face it, the futuristic glasses are pretty cool looking just as a fashion accessory, but add in all the power of a smart phone and well it’s a pretty compelling offer.

Here are some of the features in the current prototypes:

  • Responds to voice commands
  • Answers questions [since it syncs through the net it means you can search the net - it's a Google product after all]
  • Translates
  • Has GPS
  • Takes and shares photographs and live video
  • Sends and receives text messages and emails
  • Provides digital voice assistance that is customized to your personal habits [e.g. weather, traffic]

All this in a range of fashion colours!

At least one of  my luckier, dare I say it geekier, friends [Mitch Joel] has already had a chance to try the Glass.  His take:  ”I think this will blow people away.”  I’m pretty sure we can expect that by the end of 2013 we’ll start seeing the Glass on others if we’re not lucky enough to have one ourselves.

So, here’s my question: What impact will Google Glass have on the workplace?  You know it will, so it’s definitely not too soon to start thinking about the potential and planning for the future!

 

YouTube Preview Image