This blog is about improving 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.
Work
Houston. We have a problem!
“E-mails and Intranet Are Top Communication Methods Used to Engage Employees”. So reads the headline on an IABC News article. What?
Recently, I spoke about Gary Hamel’s call to reinvent management. In the webcast I refer to there, Gary talks about a global study of 90,000 employees around the world that was conducted by Towers Perrin and that showed that less than 20% of employees are engaged. And, I think this IABC News headline may tell us why. Or at least part of the why.
It seems that even though we keep saying communications isn’t about pushing messages, we continue to rely heavily on push technology and message sending.
In the world Gary describes. A world where “obedience, diligence and intellect” aren’t enough to create a competitive advantage, organizations need employees to bring “initiative, creativity and compassion” to their work. And, that isn’t going to happen because of e-mails and intranet.
How are we creating inspiring places to work? Places where people want to bring more of themselves.
Random Posts:
What can we learn from Chef Gordon Ramsay?
It has food. It has wine. It has crazy characters. It has drama. So it had to happen. Michael and I are now completely addicted to the original “Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares”. We stopped watching television months ago. Now we’re watching streaming video online. And thanks to The Food Network we’re hooked on Chef Gordon Ramsay’s show.
Who knew how complicated running a restaurant could be?
And who knew that beside the food [Ramsay’s an advocate for fresh local ingredients and simple plates – a higher purpose for the customer], communication seems to be the most important ingredient for success. And, perhaps surprisingly, I don’t mean marketing communication or PR. I mean internal communication.
We’ve now watched about 8 episodes. And with one exception – a brigade of experienced French chefs and service staff from Michelin starred restaurants who clearly knew what they were doing – the mantra of every show has been ‘Communicate!”
Ramsay’s challenge; get communication going between:
Once you get past his foul language, the man is masterful. He starts by raising their awareness of, and gets them focused on, the customer experience. A reality check.
Then, he facilitates often profound change – he encourages, he cajoles, he demonstrates, he brings new and sometimes jarring perspective and insight, he’s rational, he’s emotional and slowly but surely most teams get it.
No crafting of messages. No pushing them out. He just gets them speaking to each other. He helps them get the right conversations/communications going in the right way and at the right time to ensure the best customer experience. Remarkably completely dysfunctional teams start working well together and end up delivering outstanding experience for their customer and each other.
So, should we be spending more time as facilitator and less time as message pushers? I’d love to hear what you think?
Random Posts:
Oh dear, what can the matter be?
“E-mails and Intranet Are Top Communication Methods Used to Engage Employees”. Oh dear.
In my last post I spoke about Gary Hamel’s call to reinvent management. In the webcast I refer to there, Hamel talks about a global study of 90,000 employees around the world that was conducted by Towers Perrin and that showed that less than 20% of employees are engaged. I think this IABC News headline, above, may tell us why. Or at least part of the why.
We talk about communications as being more than crafting and sending messages. And yet, this new survey just released by the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) Research Foundation and Buck Consultants makes it clear, We still rely heavily on push technology and message sending.
And, in case we needed more evidence, the IABC article goes on to say that “32 percent of survey respondents indicate that their organizations rarely or never conduct employee listening activities”. Oh dear.
In the world Hamel describes. A world where “obedience, diligence and intellect aren’t enough to create a competitive advantage, any more, organizations need employees to bring initiative, creativity and compassion to their work.” And, that “isn’t going to happen if we command it.” It isn’t going to happen because of e-mails and intranet. It isn’t going to happen if we aren’t listening. Oh dear, what can the matter be?
What do we need to do to create inspiring work places? Places where people want to bring more of themselves.
Is it possible? Is there a role for communications in creating inspiring places to work? If so, what is it? How do you see it?
Something to read and think about
Bill Jensen, Work 2.0: Rewriting the contract, Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, 2002
Random Posts:
Innovation culture & internal communications
There’s been a lot of talk about the need for organizations to innovate. But, since organizations don’t innovate, people do, there’s also been a lot of talk about building “innovation cultures”. My friends at CommScrum have taken the discussion further and begun a conversation about innovation and what the drive to an “innovation culture” means for Internal Communications. Here’s how I’m thinking about it. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
“Innovation culture” seems to me a lot like the next generation “leadership culture”. Then everyone had to be a leader. [how that was possible I have no idea.] Now everyone has to be an innovator? [makes about as much sense as everyone’s a leader.]
So, the challenge for Internal Communicators is not to get caught up in the organizational hype and feel pressured into delivering on demand tools and tactics [sound familiar]. Instead, we need get the answers to these fundamental questions.
What needs to be innovated? Products? Services? Systems? Decision taking? Codes of Conduct? Accounting procedures? Pay policies? You get my point. Some things really benefit from continuous innovation. And some things just don’t. In fact getting too innovative would be detrimental and perhaps even illegal.
Why? To improve our employee experience? To improve our customer experience? To make it easier for the CEO to brag on the golf course? To get a headline? Understanding what’s motivating the drive for innovation will tell us how important it really is to the organization’s strategy.
Who will be most impacted? And what will the implications be for what they do and how they do it? No matter how wide or deep the drive for innovation goes, not all employees [I include execs in here too] will be affected equally [see What? above]. As communicators if we assume anything different we may find ourselves creators or amplifiers of mixed messages.
What? When? and How? It’s important to get an adequate take on what’s already being planned/done to create an “innovation culture”? And to understand how those changes will support employee innovation. New processes? New reward systems? Training? Supporting tools and tactics? For an interesting take on what needs to change, check out Jon Katzenbach and Zia Khan’s book, “Leading outside the lines”, p.177. This should give us a clear idea of how seriously the leadership is taking the change and where their priorities are. It should also help us discover where, when and how we can be most helpful.
What do you think? Will the drive for ‘innovative cultures’ change the role of Internal Communications? And, if so, how?
Random Posts:
Getting grassroots
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?
Random Posts:
“Resistance is futile”
At first glance social media is pretty alien. It’s another technology getting in the way of face to face relationships. And, as communicators we know in our hearts this is not a good thing.
And yet this is the irony of social media. This technology that on the surface seems to dehumanize in the end enables us to accomplish one of the most human of all needs – to connect with each other.
In the past week or so I’ve been reading about how GM management believe that giving employees access to social media “humanizes” the company with their clients and potential clients. But, I’m afraid this misses the real power of social media: The power to “humanize” institutions internally.
The organizations that embrace social media on the inside are enabling their employees to connect with each other across:
- time,
- geography,
- function, and
- level.
They’re helping employees access the information and expertise they need, when and how they need it to do their work. They’re energizing not just the formal organizational networks, but the informal as well.
Today the number of organizations who are giving employees full access to social media inside and out are few. Tomorrow they will be many. “Resistance is futile.”
What will this change mean for the Corporate Communications or Internal Communications functions? Not only what we do, but how we do it. I’d love to hear what you think.
By the way, as predicted by my social media mentors – Michelle Sullivan, Julien Smith, and Mitch Joel - I’ve learned that social media doesn’t get in the way of face to face relationships. In fact, quite the opposite. And, that’s a very good thing. Thanks you guys.
Random Posts:
Not all jobs are in cubicles
It’s easy to forget when you’re working in an office at HQ that not all jobs are in cubicles.
When I first began working at Alcan [now Rio Tinto Alcan] our then CEO, Jacques Bougie, insisted on beginning every talk with employees by talking about health and safety starting with the stats for the last quarter. As the newly appointed Director, Internal Communications, I thought this was simply a terrible way to begin every talk. I was wrong. He was right.
The recent explosion of the BP oil rig Deepwater Horizon and the deaths of 11 workers reminds us that every day men and women around the world go to work at dangerous jobs. Some very dangerous jobs.
The “Deaths on the Job Report” for 2010 reports that for the USA alone “In 2008, 5,214 workers were killed on the job—an average of 14 workers every day—and an estimated 50,000 died from occupational diseases. More than 4.6 million work-related injuries were reported, but this number understates the problem. The true toll of job injuries is two to three times greater—about 9 to 14 million job injuries each year.”
What role do you play in communicating health and safety information to your employees, your customers? Your shareholders? What role should you play?
The real work of your institution may be happening in places without cubicles, without internet access, maybe even without computers. By workers who farm, chop trees, provide patient care in hospitals, pack groceries, load container trucks, bottle beer, or teach in classrooms. Who may or may not be literate? And if they are may or may not be speaking French or English as their first language. Their cultures and their lives may be vastly different than yours.
How well do you and your executive understand their employees experience of their work and the organization they work for? What are the implications for how well they/you can do your job?
When was the last time you went and spent time with people on the front line? What was that experience like? If not, why not? If so, when will you do it again?
Random Posts:
From conversation to joint creation
This just arrived thanks to the Ideas Project.
John Hagel, author and business strategist, builds on the main idea presented in my last post by making a powerful argument for why social media need to be part of internal strategies. Social media are no longer just about conversation. They are tools for helping institutions set the conditions for collaboration and joint creation.
If you’re a professional communicator what if anything does this mean for you and what you do?
Random Posts:
“Can organizations be beautiful?”
Tim Brown, CEO of innovation and design firm IDEO and author of Design Thinking, asks this question in his most recent blog. “Great design thinking results in functionally and emotionally satisfying solutions where the emotional value is generated through the creation of meaning.” He goes on to express his frustration that “current organizational design practice… seems to largely be about arranging boxes in an organizational chart.” And, then he goes on to ask whether there’s room for design thinking in organizational design?
There’d better be! How else can we support employees doing their best at work?
And yet with few exceptions and after two decades in OD, brand marketing and communications [where you'd think the expression of the organization would be compelling] I can come up with only three examples where I think the representations were “functional and emotionally satisfying solutions that had potential for creating meaning.”
The first was in Henry Mintzberg’s book ‘The structuring of organizations’. It was a complete revelation for me when I first saw it. Granted the boxes are there, but the overlay of loops to show the different functional emphasis for different types of organizations is quite beautiful and simple if not too emotional. That said, it was a heart pounding experience for me when I first saw them. I’d even go so far as to say career changing.
The second was work done by Russell Grossman and the team at BBC a few years ago where their interpretation of their new structure was depicted as a colourful flower. Emotionally compelling. Perhaps not that functional though. We’d have to ask Russell.
The third, strangely enough happened just last evening. I was at the Canadian Centre for Architecture for a tour of Other Space Odyssey, their latest exhibit, and my second visit. This time I noticed something I hadn’t before in the room devoted to Michael Maltzan’s latest designs for the American Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena.
There among various maquettes and interpretations of the building was a startling blue and green model of the building based on the functional and working relationships [organigram] of the people who will work there. It simply pops! [check out the images of the exhibit and look for the blue and green jewel]
The architect’s objective was to have the building and it’s work spaces reflect the scale of the work these people do – in time [the outcome of the work they do today won’t be known for 10 years or more] and space [they are doing projects as far away as Saturn] and to breakdown hierarchy to better reflect the way that work is done. The result is an organizational design that is definitely both functional and emotionally compelling.
Imagining and representing working relationships – as this is within the context of a physical working space or virtually – can be functional and compelling. We have the technology today to express both formal and informal organizational relationships in beautiful and meaningful ways. I think the implications from a communications point of view are pretty amazing. What are we waiting for?
I’d love to hear what you think. Do you have any other examples of organizational design that is heading in the right direction?