Measuring employee communications
28th February 2006 by Shel Holtz, ABC
Judy Jones, from New York IABC, posted the following as a comment in the Employee Communications Commons, but it seemed appropriate to make it a full-blown post here:
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 12:15 pm
Judy,
I hope your response gets a lot of conversation, and I just thought I’d comment and propose a thought that has worked for me in the past.
First of all, I think it’s rare for any single entity in an organization to realistically take singular-credit for a business result. Some of my background is in retail, and while the sales force and marketing take credit for sales, so does merchandising, executive leadership, truck drivers etc. That also holds true in other corporate environments I’ve been in as well. What I think they have that internal communicators typically do not, however, are agreed-upon measures of success, based on outcomes, going into the situation.
Learning from colleagues and seminars, I’ve been successful at researching the situation, customizing a plan based on the outcomes, and getting agreement early as to what kind of outcomes you should expect from a well-executed campaign, and hold yourself and your organization them to that measurement.
For example, prior to rolling out a new strategy and vision to a very disengaged workforce in an electrical utility, we researched the workforce, found out their resistors and key requirements from the organization, separated what communications could affect (not control) and created a measurement system that included knowledge, observable behavior change, and adoption of the new organization. Of course, this required a lot of partnership with HR and our quality function to determine what the end goal would be.
Productivity (as measured by attrition, workplace accidents, sick days taken, and of course, product delivered) improved because a lot of different organizations took ownership of their piece, but we were able to prove our impact because we established early what we hoped our role would be–in business terms, not in aspirational terms.
That being said, in the case I’m referring to, I believe we had a greater impact on the organization than what we measured in how we changed the nature of the dialogue between workers and management and the general tone of the company, but that doesn’t always play in the boardroom:-). Just a thought…I’m anxious to hear others.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Internal communication is foundational to organization health and business results and because it is an enterprise-wide function it is nearly inseparable from organizational culture. To measure the impact of employee communication at Farm Credit Canda we looked to our annual employee engagement survey - question by question and response by response, isolating those factors we believed that communication could influence - knowledge of business direction, credibility of our senior management team, employee opinion about people practices.
Using the that as our baseline, we developed and implemented a national employee communication strategy specifically directed at those areas. It worked! We have seen tremendous growth in positive feedback in all communication specific aspects of the engagement survey. And we are confident that our internal communication strategies have played a key role in helping FCC move from number 50 on Canada’s list of top employers in 2003 to 35 in 2004 and 12 in 2005.
We believe that internal communication is just as important as external communication and see employees as our primary brand ambassadors. For us 10% of communication is represented by formal media (emails, newsletters, intranet, etc.), 10% is represented by our internal systems and processes and 80% is vested in leadership communication and the relationships we have with each other.
Where to from there? Employee communication objectives are set for every major initiatives - objectives that are aligned with the corporate vision and measure change in opinion and behaviour.
In response to a large number of business units surveying employee awareness, understanding and opinion about a large number of topics, we established a national omnibus survey called The Voice. It runs monthly and is widely used throughout the organization to gain insight on what employee are thinking. The results are used to benchmark key initiatives, create targeted strategies and measure progress toward our over acrching corporate goals as well as those that are program specific. The response rate is always high (over 65% in an organization of 1200 people). This strategy has gone a long way toward instilling credibility in the communication function and helped to earn us a reputation as partners in the business.
Now we are establishing an enterprise wide change management program that will bring discipline to the pace of change and consistency in messaging. It’s exciting. The strategic role of communication in managing change is undeniable. To be sure - it is one we share with our HR partners who are charged with the competency development part of change initiatives.
March 1st, 2006 at 9:17 am
Shel, first, thanks for moving the conversation over to the measurement area. Second, the comments are great. I’m embarrassed to say that we haven’t done an employee survey for more than two years because of cost issues and because there isn’t agreement about what we’re trying to measure. We continue to research this issue. Nevertheless your responses are enormously helpful. Thank you!!
March 1st, 2006 at 12:33 pm
I believe David has hit the nail on the head with his suggestions about what to measure. I’ve always said it’s best to measure knowledge, attitudes and behaviors, with behaviors being most important.
I also understand your frustration, Judy, about communication not being able to take all the credit for business improvements. But there is nothing wrong with taking partial credit. As David mentioned, what business function can claim full credit for anything? It’s another argument for the integration of communication into the business.
My business partner and I do a lot of work in communication measurement, so if you’d ever like to talk, we can do so offline.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:26 pm
[...] The measurement blog has already some interesting posts and comments on measuring employee communications and context and evaluation, something I’ve written about before. [...]
March 30th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Good discussion about moving the behaviors/ engagement/ satisfaction leavers. But I’d like to get back to Judy’s original point — especially since it’s being asked of me by my leadership. That is, how can we prove the correlation between effective communication and productivity improvements?
If we can’t find internal relationships, are there some examples of industry studies or best practices? I’ve found some of the old HP data that Brad W. used that correlated communication effectiveness with levels of performance, which is pretty darn close. And really neat in terms of HR partnerships.
Since productivity is back in our sights in my world, can any of you share any research you’ve seen on the connection?
March 30th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Hi Betsy,
Brad Whitworth did some follow-up work to that 1980s HP study. That more recent research was featured in the March/April 2005 issue of Communication World in an article he wrote with Betsy Riccomini. The article outlines a study of the survey results of a Silicon Valley-based company which surveyed 1,425 employees (out of a total of 10,000).
Among the most interesting results was a correlation between managerial communication effectiveness and employee job performance, again supporting one of the original thinkers on this issue, Roger D’Aprix, ABC. D’Aprix wrote the books Communicating for Productivity (1982) and more in the IABC book Face-to-Face: Creating an Engaged Workforce (2004: http://store.yahoo.com/iabcstore/facetoface1.html
The October 2005 issue of IABC’s online publication, CW Bulletin, has recent references to IABC (ie., the recent Best Practices in Employee Communication by Right Management) and non-IABC research related to employee productivity and communication.
http://www.iabc.com/cw/public/cwb_archive/2005/cw_news1005.htm
It includes articles by Jim Shaffer, Roger D’Aprix and Les Potter and Jeff Schmidt.
Shaffer is considered an expert on linking communication to employee productivity/performance and business performance as a whole. His article in the CW Bulletin issue some industry best practices related to performance and communication. Here’s an excerpt:
“Owens Corning has witnessed huge productivity gains in its manufacturing plants as a result of focused engagement initiatives led by the corporate communication department. The department is now introducing the process to all of its operating units, which, in turn, will be measured in part on how well they implement the process. “Our core communication system represents best communication practices that have proved to lift performance in our facilities,” Kristin Kelley, the department’s director says. “We want it to become the Owens Corning way of doing business so all of our businesses can compete with the same proven tools and processes.”
In a recent five-month pilot effort in Los Angeles, FedEx’s internal communication team realized increased volume and revenues by 15 percent and 23 percent respectively while generating a 14.5 percent return on investment. Terry Simpson, the FedEx Express communication manager who led the effort noted, “While we hit some impressive targets and at an acceptable cost, a side benefit was that we were able to re-engage many employees in this region.” FedEx is now introducing the process throughout North America.”
I hope this is helpful.
Natasha
March 30th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Natasha, thanks for the ideas. Believe it or not, I found all these references earlier today through the great Search tool on iabc’s site and have included them in my summary so far. I really appreciate these. Also, we own the F2F training kit among other IABC pubs.
However, my results so far still don’t show a DIRECT correlation to productivity. I still think it’s hard for our operational folks to make the leap from engagement.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Unless it’s a very specific and/or isolated communication (e.g., when someone responds to a product ad that you place and you ask “How did you hear about us?”), I think it’s rare to be able to draw a complete correlation between comms and productivity. Usually, subconsciously or not, our attitudes, behaviors and knowledge are influenced over time and by multiple sources, including word of mouth which seems to be the quickest (and perhaps most inconsistent) vehicle.
However, I was surprised by your comment: “There are different productivity measures around the Company, so I can’t seem to consistently link employee communications to productivity.” Maybe this uncovers a different issue for you because, depending on the size of your ee population, I would think that each department needs its own measurement/communication process customized to their specific working needs - be it emails, intranet sites, training courses, etc. Maybe there’s one broad overall strategy and budget and a few universal vehicles, but setting up unique systems for different departments is critical. From there, it’s then managing their messages/timing together so that it’s coorinated.
Also, measurement can be tied to a specific project AND it’s also about providing different feedback channels to take an ongoing pulse of employees’ needs/attitudes/behaviors. An annual survey is great to isolate, quantify and compare shifting perceptions, but in many instances there is no better feedback than immediate anecdotal accounts. There is a immediate, and tangible and even quantitive results that can go into reading 500 positive responses to an article you post to an intranet. In essence, such feedback channnels in and of themselves can be important two-way communication and relationship-building vehicles that work to support the overall annual survey.
Moreover, as communicators, I think it’s our obligation to act as a “siv” to better filter who is getting which messages - and why, when, how, etc. Then we should, to some degree, continue to incorporate feedback channels - surveys, focus groups, email boxes, from a perception and internal PR perspective between the company and employees. Employees will be appreciative to have a voice and will spend less time reading unnecessary communications that they didn’t need.
I hope this makes sense.
Rebecca
April 5th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
While Communications can influence the cultural changes needed to improve the flow of information through an enterprise, accountability for changes occuring rests with the leader of the business, program or department.
For leaders who understand that distinction, the data Communications generates can be enough to make the connection between what we do and productivity.
Just one example. Our leader shares EVERYTHING about our business performance, strategic direction, risks, opportunities and expectations with his management team each quarter so that they have all the information they need about the business to lead in their respective areas. He also talks about the importance of sharing the information with their teams so that everyone understands the strategic direction, performance, business goals and objectives, and expectations. To faciliate those discussions, we send the presentation and a link to a video replay available to every manager.
Despite those efforts, our recent information-flow survey showed nearly 40% of our employees had received NO information flowdown. Subsequent focus groups confirmed the data; not one participant was familiar with the information shared at the most recent meeting and could not recall seeing similar information from previous meetings.
Providing the raw data to our leader was, in his mind, a hugely significant contribution by Communications to productivity, because it provided him an opportunity to focus on a new priority - holding managers accountable for flowing critical information to their teams. He wants it reflected in performance evaluations, raises and job retention rankings.
If our leader succeeds, even if Communications did nothing further to facilitate information flowdown, he’ll credit Communications for providing the data that contributed to the productivity boost. If he fails, it won’t be Communications that he holds accountable.