Talking Internal Communication...

Random thoughts on… Audience

Inspired by the popularity of the new Gatehouse A to Z of Internal Communication – a slightly tongue-in-cheek look at the world of employee communication created by my colleague and consultancy co-founder Simon Wright - I thought I’d begin an occasional series of blog posts with my own, alternative thoughts a random words relating to what we all do day in, day out.  So I’m starting today with A for Audience….

If a tree falls down in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a noise? Likewise, if you pump out internal communications that no one actually looks, hears or responds to, have you communicated anything? The answer is no.

From the days of Aristotle onwards, communicators have long recognised that to communicate you need both a sender and a receiver; someone to talk and someone to listen (and, if you're really lucky, to respond). Without an audience, you simply cannot have communication. It’s a two-way thing.

Granted, the term 'target audience' has a slightly old fashioned ring to it these days. According to the critics it implies a rather passive, static group of people - nothing like employees in your average organisation. And that's why we now use other terms, like ‘stakeholder’.  But an audience will always be an audience to me. 

Whatever term you prefer, it's important to recognise that employees are not like sponges and do not simply absorb the messages we douse them in every day. Rather they are complex beasts with the freedom to choose what to attend to and what to ignore. That's why so much communication inside organisations is so damn ineffective – it’s effectively ‘white noise’ that employees simply tune out.  It's also why 'what's in it for me?' is one of the most critical questions communicators can ask. Self interest is a powerful motivator.

An audience is not, of course, an amorphous mass. Employees, like customers, are not all made of the same stuff. At its most basic an audience is a collection of individuals each with their own likes and dislikes, worries and concerns, attitudes, moods, views and  values. Fortunately there is usually some commonality amongst these groups which enables us to 'slice and dice' them, segmenting them like an grapefruit so we can tailor our approach without relying on a one-to-one dialogue.    

Understanding your audience is the starting point for great communication. It’s why listening is such an important skill for managers and leaders (just ask Best Companies how much it matters to employee engagement). And it’s why empathy is such a highly valued trait in people.

For the in-house communicators amongst you my advice is simple - get to know your employees better than anyone else inside your organisation. Know who and where they are. Snuggle up and get close to them. Find out what turns them on, and off.  Understand what they think, feel and do. Get right under their skin.  Make it your business to know which groups are engaged and which are actively disengaged. Identify the influencers and the blockers. Then, and only then, should you start thinking about your message and tactics.

Next up, B for Boss…

Lee

Singing the praises of corporate choirs

A few years ago Ernst & Young, the big 4 accountancy firm I used to work for, launched a corporate choir in London. It went down a storm as I remember, with employees signing up in droves to sing together in sweet harmony. Their occasional performances were also extremely popular with fellow employees – a real head office spectacle that entertained and lifted the spirit in equal measure…

Now I read (Human Resources, April 2009) that call centre staff at Admiral, the British insurer, are receiving singing lessons from two opera divas in a bid to boost morale and, wait for it… to reduce absenteeism. 

The musical pair, Georgina Jones and Andrea Beardshaw, have been ‘making sweet music’ with a 40-strong call centre team based in Cardiff.  Like EY, they have formed a staff choir which will perform in front of thousands of colleagues at various internal meetings this year. 

And there’s a health benefit too, with staff being taught how to use their voices to combat sore throats, manage infections and so on – all rather helpful for pressured call centre people. Apparently this initiative has been a big hit too, with the Admiral top team singing its praises from the rafters.

In a similar vein I was talking to a contact of mine who works in central Government recently and he told me that his department has been running stand-up comedy sessions internally. Nice.

Could these be the tactics we need to lift employee spirits during the deep, dark recession?

Enjoy Easter!

L

Edelman Barometer highlights global crisis of trust

The global PR agency Edelman has just released the findings of its 2009 Trust Barometer, which make very interesting reading. Here's the Executive Summary.

The global study, now in its tenth year, found that nearly two in three informed publics—62% of 25-to-64-year-olds surveyed in 20 countries—say they trust corporations less now than they did a year ago. 

I guess that's not surprising given the events of recent months, but the scale of the decline over 12 months is truly worrying. Trust in US-based business—at 38% down from 58% last year—is the lowest in the Barometer’s tracking history among informed publics ages 35 to 64— even lower than in the wake of Enron and the dot-com bust. Dark days indeed.

This pattern was echoed elsewhere in the world and what is abundantly clear is that business is facing a massive and global crisis of trust right now. The implications of this are stark - consumers are calling for tighter regulation of business and more government control.

Trust in traditional information sources and spokespeople also took a big hit. Trust in nearly every type of news outlet and spokesperson is down from last year among Edelman's 18-country tracking audience of 35-to-64-year-olds. Only 29% and 27% view information as credible when coming from a CEO or government official, respectively, declining from 36% and 32% last year.

So where do we go from here?  Well, Edelman's advice is to adopt a formal strategy of public engagement. The keys, they say, are more private sector diplomacy (including closer ties with government and NGOs), mutual social responsibility (benefiting society and the bottom line), shared sacrifice (leaders who genuinely feel the pain, greater transparency and more collaboration with employees) and continuous conversation (accessibility and a regular, two way dialogue).  They expand on this in the executive summary and, on the whole, it strikes me as very sound advice.

I haven't had time to fully digest this research, but there are two big things that immediately jump out for me as an internal communicator... 

First off, the trend away from trusting official sources of information towards trusting 'people like me' continues apace. This trend is evident in the big wide world, and it also applies internally - employees trust other employees more than they trust leaders. As communicators we need to respond to and embrace this. That's one of the reasons social media is so damn important - it provides access to and empowers 'people like me' (whether they're employees or consumers). The world order is changing and we need to change with it.

Second, and the points are linked, we need to become much, much better at engaging our employees, empowering them and equipping them to become advocates for the organisation.  The lines between internal and external are blurring fast - today your employees are as much your spokespeople as your CEO. Let's face it, they are often more trusted, more credible and more accessible. We need to face up to this reality. Lots of little voices are louder than one big voice.

I'm getting philosophical and will stop there, but this is seriously interesting stuff and, for those who have the inclination, there is a wealth of supporting information, including video-based presentations of the results, available on the Barometer website.

Check it out.

L

Three little words...

War On Terror.

Handy catchphrase, strong metaphor, powerful political sound bite or something a little more sinister?

It's been interesting to watch the debate about these three little words - what is essentially a campaign slogan - re-emerge after UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband spoke on the subject in Mumbai this week.

First used by George W Bush in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the phrase quickly caught on and, regretfully for some, became the US battle cry over the years that followed.

It's fallen out of favour a little of late - the UK Government stopped using the phrase (informally at least) in late 2006 - but it remains part of our lexicon and will, I suspect, stay lodged firmly in our heads for years to come.

Many believe the use of this rather emotive term has backfired on the US and its Western allies - legitimising terrorist claims that they are warriors in some ideological battle and focusing public attention almost exclusively on military intervention.

Indeed, some argue that it enabled the US to adopt tactics it wouldn't otherwise get away with - providing a handy banner for the Bush administration to hide behind and use to justify its actions.

So, what's all this got to do with employee communication?

Well, a couple of things - first off, it's a reminder of the immense and lasting power of the metaphor and the campaign slogan. 

Words like these have impact - they are memorable and emotive, they instantly frame an issue and conjure up strong images. But they can also have unexpected consequences. They can be twisted, contorted and boycotted by your audience (or your enemy).

Military metaphors are particularly dangerous - and yet they remain heavily used, both inside and outside organisations. The War for Talent. The Battle for Market Share.  Front line people. Motivating the troops. Indeed, the very term 'strategy' has its roots in war.

The best metaphors are accessible, visual, relevant, easy to understand and almost universal; the worst are downright lazy - a communicator's quick fix in the absence of something more appropriate. 

So, point number one - stop to think before you reach for the handy military, theatrical or other obvious metaphor. Think - is there a better way to get the message across?  Are there likely to be negative consequences? How could your internal terrorists - your disengaged people - twist it and use it against you?

I would also argue that this saga highlights why having a campaign with a big, bold label is not always a good thing. Does your initiative really need that brash slogan, with its supporting logo and mini brand identity?  Do you really have to give it a name?  Honestly?  I guess my point is that sometimes subtle - or even invisible - is better when it comes to employee communication.

I've been reading the work of Leandro Herrero recently and he, for one, makes a strong case against the Big Initiative - what he describes, in the context of organsiational change, as tsunami change.  Instead of bold statements and high profile awareness programmes he advocates a quietly-quietly approach - spreading behavioural change from person to person like a strong strain of influenza. He calls this viral change.  And that's just what's needed when it comes to fighting terrorism, whether it's disruptive employees or al-Qaeda. 

Are we delivering internal spam?

An interesting snippet caught my eye in Metro yesterday, though it may well have been an April Fool joke.

The story was about a cyber experiement called "Super Spam Me" which will see 50 guinea pigs respond to all those dodgy spam emails to see whether they deliver on their promise. Apparently they've each been given a £250 budget to spend on impotence cures, revolutionary weight loss pills, needy Nigerians and other too-good-to-be-true offers. Thinking about it, I'm now pretty sure it was an April Fool.

Anyway, it got me thinking about internal spam - or rather all those pointless and irrelevant emails that get pumped out inside organisations every day of the week.

There are a lot of them and many of them originate in - or at least have had input from - the internal communication department.  We should hang our heads in shame.

During my time in-house I regularly had running battles with head office teams over the relevance (or rather lack of) of many organisation-wide e-messages. When your role is focused on a particular business unit or operating division you tend to see this phenomenon more clearly. Indeed, if you're properly plugged into your audience it's something they will no doubt signal to you loud and clear. 

Interestingly the same thing played out at the next 'level' of the organisation.  So, where I would yell "why are you sending me all this irrelevant national stuff?" at the national team, so too would the managers responsible for individual offices or branches shout at me "why are you sending me all this irrelevant regional/BU stuff?"  The national team would yell the same thing at the global team. The same thing gets played out all the way down to team or even individual level.

It's all about what I call 'circles of belonging'. Get an employee to draw a bunch of concentric circules and at the centre put "Me", then for each circle in turn ask them to put the next most important focus - e.g. my team, my office, my business unit, my business, my group, my sector, etc.. The closer communication content is to the centre, generally the more relevant it is likely to be considered. 

Problem is, most of the communication we deal with as business communicators is pretty broad-brush stuff - largely concerning the outer circles only.  That's why savvy communicators are increasingly focused on equipping and empowering line managers.

There's an interesting exercise we sometimes conduct as part of our communication audit work at Gatehouse. It involves creating a dummy employee identity  - a sort of virtual new starter - and then seeing what electronic gumph they receive. We also monitor the mailboxes of real people to see how much material they get bombarded with in a typical one or two week period - and to assess how relevant that content is. It's always extremely enlightening.

Something we have to constantly ask ourselves as communicators is are we helping create focus and clarity in the minds of employees or are we simply adding to the noise?  Are we helping answer those critical "so what does this mean to me?" and "what do I need to do?" questions for front line people, or are we merely creating communication clutter by banging out irrelevant high level stuff that no one really cares about?

Messages and music - evil holding tunes

Although slightly scared, I had to laugh.

I phoned up a potential client today and, while I was being put through to my contact, was put on hold by the operator. The hold music kicked in. Nothing unusual there. Except the music.

When you're held on the telephone you usually hear dull but generally inoffensive piped muzak, or perhaps some soothing classical or laid back R&B tunes.  Occasionally you get those awful broadcast announcements about the latest product offering.

That's fine though. Whichever, it just washes over you and passes you by without punctuating your day. It certainly doesn't affect your mood.

But this global software company (which shall remain nameless) chose the rather chilling title track to the horror movie The Omen.  You know the one I mean - that disturbing, seriously unsettling and arguably evil Gregorian chant. I think it's called Ave Satani, Latin which translates to 'Hail Satan'.

I was surprised, shocked even. I didn't expect such a auditory jolt at 1000am in the morning. It felt like an intrusion into my otherwise relaxed morning.

It's odd isn't it, the power of music?  I spotted this little piece on a blog a few days ago and I've been thinking about it since. Then my experience this morning.

I'm probably thinking far to much about this, but there is no doubting that the music you choose to use in business (or not as the case may be) can convey a message or create a mood or atmosphere. Whether it's the hold music in the call centre, the audio 'wallpaper' in the employee canteen or tracks chosen for videos or events, it has a way of getting through to people on an emotional level.  As such, it can either support or undermine your communication efforts.

Whilst there's something slightly comical about a major software company pumping out the theme to The Omen, I can't help feeling that it was a bizarre choice. It just seems to clash with messages about social responsibility and cutting edge software solutions. Truth is, it probably wasn't a conscious choice at all.

Are we getting too obsessed with strategy?

Sue Dewhurst has raised an interesting point over at the Black Belt Dojo, which I have just responded to. I won't try to replicate everything here, but you might want to head over there and add a comment or two...

It's about that old chestnut of strategy versus tactics.

Sue is passionate in her view that tactical implementation is every bit as important as strategy.  In her post she questions whether our obsession with the 'sexy' strategic side of internal communications - big, important topics like employee engagement, internal consulting, coaching and so on - is eclipsing the vital but arguably less exciting end of what we do - the drafting and crafting of communication materials, the creation of hard-hitting awareness campaigns, the maintenance of the intranet, etc.

Like Sue I'm also worried that we're getting too focused on strategy and losing sight of the basics. I worry that we'll end up with a wealth of great strategists and too few tacticians. I worry that, as a profession, we'll repeat the mistakes of HR and begin to be seen at worst as a rather aloof, disconnected function.

I raised this in my response to Sue's post.

At the last CIPD conference the HR profession took a real bashing because of its new found obsession with everything 'strategic'.

In his opening address Royal Mail chairman Allan Leighton said that "too much time is spent on strategy [which] only accounts for 20%". He went on to say that execution is the most difficult thing and that's what makes winners win.

It seems that in its hunger to reposition itself as a strategic function, HR is losing sight of the basics -the very things that business leaders want it for.

Sound familiar?

I can see this happening in internal comms. As our profession matures we're all so busy fighting to be accepted and taken seriously by the board, that we're letting go of our 'bread & butter' tactical skills.

I agree wholeheartedly with Sue - tactical implementation is just as important as strategy, crafting and drafting just as vital as coaching the CEO.

Let's not lose sight of this in our rush to the top!

Hilary moment shows power of emotion

If you haven't already read it, make sure you check out Mark Ragan's excellent piece on the the great Hilary Clinton comeback and the lessons it provides for communicators. 

As well as demonstrating the enormous power the social media/video sharing combo now yields in the world of political campaigning, it underlines for me the importance of emotion in communication, one of my old hobby horses.   

Whether in the political arena or the corporate world, a show of genuine human emotion can, quite literally, change the course of events.

In this case Hilary's near-tearful response to a voter's question - caught on camera and spread like wildfire on the blogosphere - is widely credited with saving her from defeat in New Hampshire and reigniting her campaign for the presidency. 

Of course, the cynics say it's media manipulation, but people make up their own minds - and in this case they clearly believe this was a moment of genuine humanity. 

Spontaneous shows of emotion remain uncommon on the corporate stage, where the rational rules supreme and where executives are still expected to hold their emotions firmly in check.

That's a shame, because the world of work would be a far better place if leaders and managers were a little more open with their emotions. 

Time and time again I've seen what happens when bosses dare to show their human side - whether it's showing up with their family at the corporate fun day or having a heart-to-heart with a colleague over a restructure.  Seeing the person behind the suit somehow makes them more accessible, more available, more real. 

It can't be manufactured (people can spot fake emotion a mile off), but it's something we communicators can encourage by letting our clients know that, most of the time, it's safe for them to wear their hearts on their sleeves - that it's okay for them to stray from those rigid messages and show how they feel, as well as what they think. 

For all our talk about hearts and minds, employee communication remains a largely rational affair, focused on facts, not feelings. Fact is reality just isn't like that.

 

What message does your festive bash send to employees?

Firstly, apologies for my radio silence over the last few weeks – we’ve been so busy at Gatehouse that I’ve really struggled to find time to blog.

December is an odd month isn’t it? There’s always something rather frantic about it – it’s that last minute rush to complete projects (or spend budget!) before the end of the year, and to get New Year plans in place before we all down tools for a few days over Christmas. Yet despite the heavy workloads, many of us are now gearing up (down?) for our annual festive bash. Yes, it’s party time! 

Seeing clients, friends and family head off for an evening of fun and frivolity and inevitably return with a major hangover, I can’t help wondering messages these parties send to employees (ok, I'll admit it, that is rather sad). They may not be part of the internal communicator’s armory, but there’s no doubting that the behavior (or misbehavior) of leaders, managers and employees at these events can either reinforce or undo much of what we have worked so hard to communicate during the past 12 months.

Contradictions abound. Take the leader who bangs on about diversity and inclusiveness all year round and then gets hammered at the bar and tells racist jokes. Or the call center manager who severely reprimanded anyone who arrived late for a shift and then fails to turn up the morning after the night before. A mismatch between what you say and what you do is one of the easiest ways to disengage employees. And that's without even mentioning the sex, drugs and fights, all of which I have witnessed at office parties over the years. They are a minefield in oh so many ways.

I remember one party I attended a few years ago where the CEO turned up clad head to toe in a figure-hugging Lycra bodysuit. Let’s just say it left little to the imagination. The venue was rather warm and, if his appearance was not already disturbing enough, the resulting sweat patches guaranteed near universal amusement. This brave move had a number of consequences - for sure no one who was there ever looked at him in quite the same way, but everyone knew he had a serious sense of humor and, thus, was genuinely human. Positives and negatives. 

That one was actually quite amusing and did no lasting harm, but the problem is that most actions are rarely as calculated - in what is usually a booze-fuelled environment, people often let their guard down a little too far. I did exactly that when I belted out that awful karaoke number a few years back. Believe me, it's worth pausing for thought before you down that next glass of Champagne.

If you need more convincing here's some useful legal advice published a few years ago on the excellent legal website from Pinsent Masons, Out-Law.com.

A lesson in information security

Today's highly embarrassing announcement by the chancellor, Alistair Darling, that HMRC has lost two discs containing the personal details of 25 million individuals provides a stark reminder of the need for organizations to educate their employees on information security.

It appears that the blunder was caused when "a junior official" sent the two computer discs, containing key information about the 7.25 million families in the UK who receive child benefit, to the National Audit Office.  This seemingly simple administrative task has exposed half the UK population to the risk of identity theft and possible fraud.

The discs were apparently sent unregistered using the internal post system run by courier TNT (Mr Darling was keen to point out that this was a breach of HMRC's own guidelines). The discs never arrived and, at this point in time, could be in the hands of fraudsters or, perhaps, sitting under a bush somewhere. A police investigation is now underway, the chair of HMRC has resigned and the government has egg on its face once again. All in all it's a catastrophic cock up. And all because one employee wasn't aware of, or didn't understand, how to handle data like this (I'm speculating of course, but you get the point).

This debacle underlines the need for organizations to educate their employees about information security and other aspects of risk management. Dull as these subjects may at first appear, all it takes is a mistake like this - somewhere down the line and possibly at a junior level in the organization - to wreck reputations and seriously compromise the security of benefit claimants/customers/voters/clients.

I remember participating in a really dull mandatory workshop a few years back on information security. It was worse than watching paint dry.  It definitely didn't engage me, and I suspect that for most participants the valuable content just went in one ear and out the other. 

What's interesting is that a topic that is so important and business-critical as this is often left to the risk management boffins or data protection officers to drive. Internal communication are nowhere to be seen - usually tied up on other, seemingly more exciting and important, initiatives.

As communicators we should treat today as a wake up call. Use this as a topical opportunity to get involved in information security and other risk-related communications. Find out what your organization has done in this area and/or is planning and offer your services. Educate yourself (the Information Commissioner's Office is a good starting point) and work with those responsible to bring the subject to life. It doesn't have to be dull and, as Alistair Darling would no doubt agree, it's a critically important aspect of organizational life.