Welcome
18th February 2006 by Shel Holtz, ABC
I’m excited about the prospects for “IABC’s Employee Communications Commons.” The collection of internal communicators who will serve as the Commons’ internal communication blog bring years of experience and are known for their insights as well as for being outspoken. The chemistry should make for some great discussions.
Personally, I have always believed that communicating with employees is more important than communication with any other corporate public. Employees who are not engaged, aligned, and committed can render the best external communications meaningless. On the other hand, employees who are engaged, aligned, and committed can overcome the worst external communication blunders. Sadly, employee communications is often perceived by management as a cost center, left to scavenge for budgets that are puny compared to those of advertising, marketing, and even PR.
That could change in the world of new media. Consider the impact employees have on external communication when permitted to blog on behalf of their companies…a radical and unacceptable notion to old-school executives, but a trend that is definitely picking up steam. How important do internal communications become when employees serve as a direct interface to customers?
I expect we’ll hear about new media on this blog, but also about the more traditional aspects of employee communications. Who knows? We could even wind up talking about (gasp) print!
In any case, I hope readers will jump right in with comments, turning this into a genuine interactive experience. It should be fun!
February 20th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
I agree, Shel. The employee audience is the most important of all, and communicating with employees is the most complex, challenging — and potentially rewarding — aspect of this business.
Let me kick off the conversation by bringing up a common theme in the world of employee communications: the feeling of helplessness in the face of corporate bureaucracy. This is something everyone who does internal communications experiences, particularly early in one’s career.
Rather than dwell on the problem, which is pervasive, I’d like to touch on the greatest source of hope for any communicator, and that is the power of language.
The way we put words together directly reflects what we believe, and how we behave. All the internal workings of a society — its values, its ethics, its morality, its innate qualities — are contained in the language it uses in its day-to-day speech.
Words are the genetic code of human existence, and writers can redefine humanity by putting words together in new combinations.
When you write or edit something, you are exercising real power. In the corporate world, the internal publication editor is often the last checkpoint before a big new program is rolled out or a major decision is implemented. When information destined for employees passes by your desk, in a real way you act as a final approval mechanism.
Sometimes the process of trying to communicate something exposes flaws in its logic. Before communicating an idea, you have to think it through, and companies benefit from the common sense of their editors.
So, whenever you’re feeling as if what you do as an internal communicator doesn’t make a difference, think again. There is power in your fingertips. Use them wisely and you can change the world, one word at a time.
February 21st, 2006 at 6:28 am
Ron wrote fine piece of prose that I almost entirely agree with, but would question whether we can actually REDEFINE humanity…”
as you have written: “… and writers can redefine humanity by putting words together in new combinations…”
I believe we can hold up mirrors of human behavior to prompt reflection, stimulate thought, and inspire action. Most ‘higher-order’ or noble human functions are baked into our basic defintional wiring.
No less a challenge in most organizational settings (you comment on bureaucracy,) is how we do our work. How willing are we to tilt windmills and put ourselves out there to win agreement that the free flow of words and choosing the right medium is a critical success factor to the organization’s mission. But such is the mission of our profession–the one that we have chosen and the one that has intrinsic rewards, which is why we do what what do.
February 21st, 2006 at 7:20 am
Hi, Shel.
This is a terrific idea. I hope it takes off. I’ll certainly be out here regularly.
Steve Crescenzo
February 21st, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Yikes, get a grip. Employee communication is critical, yes, but not more important than customer communication. Without customers, we’ll have no need for employee communication because we won’t need any employees. Yet I have seen many B2B companies pay more attention to employee communication than marketing. I know it seems like marketing always gets mega budgets, but believe me, in the B2B world the budget is seldom sufficient to communicate well with customers, whether through advertising, websites, newsletters or whatever. We really need to understand customer needs and what drives their decisions much, much better. When we do, we can communicate better. And don’t you think communicating well with customers is at least as beneficial to the organization as communicating well with employees?
February 21st, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Merry, I never suggested that external marketing is unimportant, and when I claim internal communication is MORE important, it’s by a matter of degrees. But I’ll stand by that belief. You suggest no customers means no employees to whom the organization neds to communicate. I suggest that no employees means no product to sell to customers. Bad communication could mean lousy product and service that no amount of marketing could fix.
Consider GlaxoSmithKline, which announced (today’s AdAge) that it has “anointed its 8,000 U.S. sales representatives as ‘public relations ambassadors’ to lift its image and that of the beleaguered industry with grassroots PR.” If these employees were not fully engaged, this effort would backfire in a spectacular way.
I’m also not suggesting companies pay MORE attention to internal communications than marketing. I am, however, suggesting they begin to pay ENOUGH attention to it. That means a strategic approach, adequate resources, and a seat at the table.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:55 pm
I’d like to know what companies are paying more attention to employee communications than to marketing! We should give them an award for being the first!
February 21st, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Shel, when you get a seat at the table, will you bring me along? While we’re there, we can discuss the chicken and egg issue.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:24 am
Merry, speaking of getting “a seat at the table,” you might be interested in a series of recent posts on my employee communications blog, For Your Approval, entitled, “The Myth of the ‘Strategic Communicator’.” In the posts I address one of the biggest issues that faces communicators — having to deal with detached executives who “just don’t get it” and how communicators can exercise real influence without a seat at the table. http://www.ronshewchuk.blogs.com
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:24 pm
It’s heartening to hear about GlaxoSmithKline. The company would not have made such a huge investment in employees as ambassadors if did they not believe it would pay off. It’s a brilliant approach.
Employees are ambassadors - for better or worse - whether it is company strategy or not. In the case of GlaxoSmithKline, they’ve had the wisdom to engage employees for the best of all possible outcomes.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:32 pm
I think Shel brings up several good points in his initial conversation starter, most of which I agree with…….sort of:
1. On the issue of employee communications as a cost center, new media technologies have greatly reduced the price and infrastructure neccessary for effective programs. However, let us not forget that face-to-face communication is still the most effective and costly medium.
2. Employees have always been a direct interface with customers. The differences now are that a) people trust average employees more than executives and spokespeople b) more employees have the potential to reach more consumers and c) Companies are not as able to regulate the terms of interaction
3. We are asked to “Consider the impact employees have on external communication when permitted to blog on behalf of their companies.” I think one of the more pressing concerns before consider whether to jump into the blogosphere is to take a look at who among you is already there, i.e. employees blogging without stopping to ask for permission. It is often these unofficial bloggers that are the most influential.
I’m interested to hear everyone’s thoughts.
Cheers,
Jeffrey
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:00 pm
I just logged on from a wireless lounge at the Westin Hotel in Charlotte, NC, which is hosting the IABC Leadership Institute. Friendly folks here in Charlotte, and I look forward to a great conference.
I’m intrigued by the philosophical discussion Shel has kicked off. I wonder if I can add to the conversation by indulging your attention to a hands-on employee comms challenge I’m facing. Here’s my situation… Faculty at the university where I work are unionized and about to start negotiations toward a third collective agreement. The union publishes a bargaining newsletter for its members, and also maintains a content-rich, frequently updated web site which is publicly available to anyone who knows the URL. The content is issue-focused, generally well researched, and always passionately argued (what else would you expect from academics) though on occasion the rhetoric can get very colourful. As we approach the expiry date on the current contract, things are heating up as the union defines the issues it wishes to tackle. The administration, on the other hand, is less public (intentionally so) with its communications, preferring to do all its talking at the negotiating table. There’s some thought, however, that we should get out there a little more to tell administration’s side of things in a more public forum. So, my question: should administration be communicating more publicly, perhaps doing its own web site and/or paper publication, to ensure its position on particular negotiating issues is accessible to members of the campus community? Or would we be wiser/safer to stay the course, limiting communication to formal negotiations and informal communication with key campus leaders (deans, chairs, etc.)?
February 24th, 2006 at 3:12 am
I really like this idea. I am making a career change into the world of PR from sales and marketing, going to school part time for the post degree certificate. From my previous life, being on the recieving end of internal communications I have found in the Canadian context (I am from Toronto), organizations have a tin ear in dealing with their employees, past present and future. I have a feeling its an issue all over planet earth, not just my corner of the world. This translates into employee engagement, retention and of course the point they are the front line ambassadors for the organization. Will operation committees figure this one out, who knows?
Regards
William (call me Bill) Smith
February 24th, 2006 at 9:36 am
Employees or customers? Internal or external? I see the boundaries between these audiences blurring in many instances. For example, most Microsoft employees are also Microsoft customers and most are Microsoft shareholders. We definitely need coordinated communications and integrated efforts whenever possible.
I also recognize that the customer = employee analogy isn’t true everywhere. Few Boeing employees have a 747 in the parking lot for the commute home.
I’m reminded in this discussion of a comment that Dave Packard, co-founder of Hewlett-Packard, once shared with us in corporate communications. He said the only two important audiences were employees and customers … the rest were just other, lesser ways to reach those two key audiences.
February 24th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Great news to see this blog up and running!
Just an observation: it was curious to me to see so much emphasis on written comms (whether electronic or print) for employee communications.
The power of language is indeed amazing but so much more effective in interactions than it is in broadcasting. I’d venture to say that new media will go a long way towards demystifying the art (or is it a science now?)of the editor as the “last checkpoint.” A democratization of language?
I’d love to hear more about what people are doing “out there” to enhance employee communications aside from broadcasting from the center.
February 24th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Brad’s point is well taken through the Dave Packard perspective that a balance is required between employees and customers. It is the all too often imbalance in organizations that Shel, Robert, Merry and others address.
Some organizations in the Fortune 500 or 100 or 50, or in the 100 Best Places to Work categories are charismatic and appear to have it right, but, scracthing below the surface are not there yet, it appears from my networking. Others have struck a good balance. HP might be one. Bombardier is perhaps another.
Going to the point about labour relations and communication, my experience from many years in the Canadian “strike every three years” health sector (like education sector) has been that, during episodic periods of intense union communication during negotiations and grievances, the long term foundation of effective communication pays off. I would stay the course and communicate with your leaders, not in direct rebuttal to the union position, but around progress in the negotiations and impact on the organization of that union position (the facts) while expressing respect for the union position. Continue as you would with any other major issue in many respects. Some may differ on that approach. Others would advise against any kind of public meeting because the employer tends to lose in those arenas. Just some thoughts.
February 24th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Malcolm,
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding how to respond to communications regarding the contract negotiations. Is it safe to assume that neither side is bound to refrain from leaking information? Certainly, the administration is taking the high road in its decision to focus on communicating first at the bargaining table. Some audiences won’t perceive it that way, however.
It is a common tactic for groups to make charges and half-truths during negotiations. The thing NOT to do is to get into a “they said, we said” debate where accusations and counter-accusations fly. “When did you stop beating your wife?”; or, “When did you stop caring about education/faculty/students?”
I see value in making the administration’s points without directly challenging the union. Blogging about the negotiations and the surrounding issues–without speaking to specific negotiating points–can be done in a way to reduce negative impressions about the administration. Silence can be construed as secrecy and arrogance. Intellectually, we can say that contract negotiations should be conducted in confidentiality–but if people on one side of the bargaining table could successfully overcome these kinds of challenges by refusing to comment, people on the other side of the table wouldn’t bother leveling charges to anyone who listens.
February 25th, 2006 at 12:01 am
One of the big questions facing employee communications professionals in my experience in Australia is creating a rock solid alignment with external communication activities. As someone whose main focus has been in the external PR space I have seen many examples of media and stakeholder briefings occurring without prior employee engagement. I have grown to learn the value of employee comms and now advise clients that the “staff know first” principle must apply wherever possible. While I believe employees are the best advocates a company can have, internal communications is often seen as an afterthought in the strategy mix. I think it’s up to the internal communications community to make themselves more relevant in the communications departments of major organisations, particularly with the rise of blogs and “word of mouth’ marketing. Interested in everyone’s thoughts.
February 25th, 2006 at 6:21 am
To focus on the fuzzy line between internal and external communications: What happened to that line? I vaguely remember it working when I was a communications tadpole.
I am with an organization in which everything that is said internally winds up on highly visible bogs and media-centered sites. It’s a little suprising to see an internal memo appear on Gawker, say, shortly after it’s released. I guess we’re all getting used to it, and developing content accordingly. Yet, it’s a discipline that requires some focus and I simply have to keep reminding myself.
About new media: We’re in the midst of exploring many different venues. Some work areas have launched blogs successfully; and other functions are experimenting with Sharepoint sites. Last year, we created a very well-received electronic newsletter from our Chairman and CEO, jointly. This, by the way, spawned many, many copycat electronic newsletters around the Company. I guess that’s one way to measure success!
We’re getting ready to experiment with podcasts -but it’s a little slow to get going. I haven’t come up with someone who’s willing to record. Lastly, we’re exploring some ideas with one of our departments, which is responsible for video casting initiatives on our flagship site. We’d like to communicate our new R&D capability across our Company. It’s just starting up, and so everything about it feels a little vague right now.
I have a couple of challenges (well, I guess I’ve got a lot of challenges but here’s two I’m thinking about currently). In my role, I’m also responsible for executive compensation communications. It’s the ol’ statement. Is anyone doing anything exciting in this arena? And second, measurement. I’m trying to connect some dots between the money we spend and the work that we do and our Company’s profitability or revenue growth, perhaps. I’m interested in getting anyone’s feedback about how to go about this. I’ve already met with our finance people who has discouraged me from trying to link employee communications and profitability or growth. We also are extremely decentralized in how we measure productivity. So any ideas would be very welcome!
This is a great site -
Thank you, IABC!
February 25th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Thanks to Peter and Tom for your thoughts on my question re: communications during negotiations. Much appreciated. Tom, your comment about silence being perceived as secrecy and arrogance resonates. At that same time, I know admin clearly doesn’t want to get into a public pissing match with the union. It will be a fine line to walk, and interesting days no doubt lie ahead. Thanks again.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:19 am
Judy,
New communication tool such as blogs are speeding the dissemination of information; however, the types of information being shared are no different than what appeared in newspaper columns years ago, or what was shared “in confidence” at trade shows and golf courses.
I remember hearing years ago as a corporate communicator that anything we published internally could be leaked externally. It didn’t matter that we put the words, “company confidential” or “for internal use only” on it.
That isn’t the case in every situation, of course. We’ve all heard about people who have been jailed or fined for releasing sensitive material.
The “safety” that keeps information from being distributed inappropriately is found within each individual, supported by company and cultural codes of conduct. I’ve worked in places where someone’s clout was measured by how much that person knew–so people prided themselves on telling others whatever they could, just to be the first ones to “be in the (unofficial) know.”
Today, I contribute to blogs such as this one and the IABC Cafe. Whenever I mention the company that employs me, I am very careful about what I share. I always think, “What would someone within the company say about what I’m writing?”
Certainly, the speed at which opinions and information can be created and sent makes it more likely for someone to send something in anger or haste that might have been written differently if that person allowed more time for discernment. We faced the same issue when email first became popular. Remember the admonitions against responding via email when you were emotional? We’re going through something similar now.
February 27th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Tom, that “emotional response” is something to be reckoned with.
My guts tell me that people are unhappy and that’s why announcements and changes end up plastered all over the Web.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments -
jj
February 27th, 2006 at 9:49 am
I would love to learn more about how other are integrating blogging and SharePoint sites into their existing corporate intranet sites. At what point are there too many separate tools for communication? Has anyone ported over intranet sites into SharePoint to take advantage of the collaboration tools and make the intranet more lively? And what about TeamSite?
February 28th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Okay, I’m going to bring up a really dreary subject. (I can hear the virtual groans already.) Let’s talk about measuring Employee Communications or Internal Communications. Here’s the problems I’ve got: There are different productivity measures around the Company, so I can’t seem to consistently link employee communications to productivity. Margin, growth - great metrics but they’re influenced by a number of factors and I’m not successfully selling the case that employee communications can take credit; I have sold the idea that an initiative (based on multiple factors, like training, corporate communications, employee communications, etc.) can take credit. I don’t have a talent management metric to hang my hat on. HELP.
February 28th, 2006 at 9:39 am
A great topic, Judy. I’ve copied it and made it a post in the Measurement Commons where we might get some good discussion started! For everybody reading Judy’s comment, come on over to the Measurement Commons to get in on the discussion.