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.
Transparency
The challenge – Change the profession!
We’ve heard it all before. The traditional approach to corporate communications – tightly “scripted messages delivered by the chief executive, first to investors, then to other opinion-formers, and only later to the mass audiences of employees and consumers“ has got to go.
And it needs to be replaced by vibrant “peer-to-peer and horizontal discussion across stakeholders. [Where] the employee is the new credible source for information about a company, giving insight from the front lines. [And], the consumer has become a co-creator, demanding transparency on decisions from sourcing to new-product positioning.” [Ref for these quotes]
And yet, even as Web and Intranet 2.0 are about to become 3.0 we’re still working through 1.0 [ok maybe 1.5]. And if you have any doubt, just pop into CommScrum to check out the animated discussion going on there over what and how our main professional association IABC is or isn’t serving the needs of our profession in this new world.
As early as 2007, Arthur W Pages’ publication, the Authentic Enterprise in 2007, presented recommendations for transforming “our profession, open[ing] up new and meaningful kinds of responsibility and learning, and creat[ing] exciting new career paths for communications professionals. If you haven’t read it, it’s a great starting point for thinking about the revolution of our profession.
And, in June, after months of online consultation, The Stockholm Accords were published. Their aim “… is to articulate and establish the role of public relations in the “communicative organization” within a fast-evolving digital and value-network society.” [I think the authors would do well to refer back to the Authentic Enterprise].
We know what we need to do, so what’s stopping us?
Random Posts:
On being authentic
The first time I ever heard the term authentic used in an organizational setting was only a few years ago and it might have been the last time it made any sense.
I was doing a small project for Nike’s Marketing team at their head office in Portland, Oregon. They often referred to authentic Nike. At first I thought it was some meaningless corporate jargon [there’s generally a lot of that going around at HQs wherever they are]. It took me a while, but I finally realized that for them a product was authentic Nike only if it had been designed with a world class athlete to improve their personal performance. Now, that’s authentic.
Three years ago, The Authentic Enterprise concluded that “…authenticity will be the coin of the realm for successful corporations and for those who lead them.” And, that “Communicators are uniquely positioned to become experts on the new art and science of organizational trust.” Now, I need to say up front that I generally find this whitepaper interesting and compelling. And not surprisingly I’m pretty keen about their conclusions for communicators.
The problem I have is that this paper and the discussion that has followed is based on two flawed assumptions:
- Institutions can be other than authentic
- Being authentic is always going to be good.
I don’t believe either of these assumptions are true.
First, how could an institution be anything other than authentic. They are what they are. They do what they do. Their behaviours and actions, the decisions they take or don’t take reflect their underlying beliefs and values. And, whether you like them or not they are a totally authentic.
Second, authenticity has lost its meaning. For Nike it was real and good. The challenge for many institutions today is that what is authentic is not that good. What’s real is not good. Think of British Petroleum or the Vatican. Their behaviours and actions tells us much about their authentic institution and it’s not good.
Importantly, though authentic and transparent are often talked about in the same breath, you don’t have to be transparent for anyone to get who you really are and what you stand for. Here’s an example:
A young friend of mine, a recent MBA grad, got a job offer from a fortune 100 global high-tech company early this summer. He was told that his candidacy had to go through the CEO. He stopped his job search – he’d received and accepted a formal offer [reflects his values]. It’s been weeks and still no word. This one act tells us a lot about this organization. And, perhaps more than my young friend would like to know. First, even though one of their 5 values is respect they have put a young debt-ridden new grad in this position. Second I believe my friend can be confident that control will be one of the most important underlying values – not innovation or accountability. Two other values that are listed on their site.
On being authentic. That’s easy. Now how to make institutions authentic and forces for good?
Random Posts:
From the inside looking out
Earlier in my career I worked for one of the most admired brands in Canada. It’s the kind of thing that makes you proud. You walk into any situation and people are all over you about how great it must be. Except it wasn’t. The buzz and hype had created an external brand that didn’t match the internal reality.
What brings this to mind is that two more of the world’s most powerful and valued brands have taken big hits to their reputations in the past few weeks. And both of them for misleading customers.
DELL is accused of hiding significant and potentially dangerous technical issues from their business customers. Recently unsealed lawsuit documents reveal cover-up and purposeful deception that may have gone on for years.
Apple’s iphone customers have complained of dropped calls since the first iphone hit the market. They were told it was a network problem. A small problem of design which meant you just had to hold it a certain way. Then a software problem. Now, according to consumer reports the phone’s hardware is flawed. And it looks like Apple may have known about this problem for some time.
The thing is when we say DELL and Apple knew and have been misleading customers, we mean DELL and Apple employees knew and have been misleading customers. Certainly not all employees new. But, most certainly some of them did. And, no doubt many of them suspected the truth.
What’s it like to be on the inside of brands like these? To know that the customer’s brand experience is build in whole or in part on a myth. To know that if anyone really took a look behind the curtain they’d find behaviours that were questionable if not unethical or illegal. To know that your boss or your colleague is misleading you?
Rising employee cynicism and plummeting trust in leadership tell the tale. So the next time you’re asked how communications can help reverse these trends don’t start drafting new and better messages to push. Stop yourself from building a inspiring internal campaign or refreshing the intranet. Do start thinking about how you can help set the conditions for getting the right conversations going with the right people around where and how the employee experience is not aligned with the brand and discovering what needs to change.
Some additional reading
I went to see if I could find the values statements for DELL and Apple. Read in the context of what is in the news now, they are pretty interesting.
- Check out Dell’s official ‘Soul of Dell’
- Apples doesn’t publish its values statement on the web, but I did find a pdf post that looks pretty credible. If the actual values statement “customer empathy” is especially chilling.
And, I’ve been following the animated discussion on the smoke and mirrors of employer branding with Sean Trainor at CIPR Inside that adds another dimension to this post.
Random Posts:
“Always look on the bright side …”
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.
Random Posts:
Random Posts:
What makes a good code of conduct?
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
Random Posts:
Sometimes the words do matter
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 integrityFocus on the company and feels like PR. What does integrity look like?
|
Code of Conduct for CF PersonnelFocus 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?
Random Posts:
Actions speak louder than words
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?
Random Posts:
Spin is still in
Today’s article titled “Air Canada raises number of stock options for execs” raised my hackles. Not because of the specific case, but what this story really tells about the state of communications today. We talk in our bubble about transparency and authenticity, but almost daily reports tell another story.
In this case, the company’s shareholders decided to quadruple the shares available for stock option plans for senior executives. And, you can imagine that if the stock option plan at Air Canada had been wildly out of whack with the market there would certainly be a business case for doing this. You can imagine that getting and keeping good leadership in an industry as challenged as the airline industry isn’t easy. And you can even imagine that total potential compensation is the key attractor for senior executives.
And then, the CEO said: “There will be no change in compensation plans for senior executives.” What? If increasing the number of available stock options doesn’t change compensation plans then why are they doing it?
Now, I’m not naïve. The company has negotiated an agreement with their union that says there will be “no change in compensation plans of senior executives.” And, I understand that going back and renegotiating with them on this point might not be an option. But, falling back on a statement that is technically accurate without being true is just not right.
Every time any CEO does this they [and their leadership teams] lose credibility. Every employee and every person reading the article knows that the total potential compensation for senior executives has most certainly changed.
What do you think? Do you think spin is still in? And if so, where do you stand?
Do you see this kind of thing in your organization? If you’d been at the table when the decision to announce this change was made, what advice would you have given?
Random Posts:
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