Email in the Age of Social Media

In an era when people increasingly communicate via Facebook posts and Tweets, email can seem antiquated. Yet within a corporate environment, email remains the best means of communicating quickly, accurately and reliably to individuals, selective groups, or the entire organization.

            But it’s imperfect. The most consistent complaints I’ve heard about internal corporate email is that it is over-used, misused and abused; that there is an over-reliance on it as a medium when other means might be better; and that the sheer volume of email overwhelms most people. 

            The fact is most organizations haven’t taken a logical approach to email to assure that internal emails are achieving maximum efficiency. You may remember a time when email communications were rare, or even non-existent. But they are so integral to today’s business dynamic, it’s easy to forget just how relatively young the medium is. 

            Perhaps as a consequence, email communications often exhibit more laziness, sloppiness and inconsistency than any other form of business communication. Poorly conceived emails can derail or even doom relationships, strategy implementation and general morale within organizations.

            Are we as mindful of our email communications as we are of our other written and oral communications? In other words, do we prepare our emails with as much care and thought as we do our oral presentations and written reports?

            An equally critical problem is people getting deluged with emails. The result is often that much of it goes unread because people just don’t have time to look at everything. I’ve heard repeatedly that people get so many emails from their managers and company leadership that they’re never sure which are important enough to merit their reading the entire communication.

            Reminiscent of the “boy who cried wolf,” lots of “important” emails from the CEO result in none being perceived as “important.”

            Our instincts say that any communication impacting the entire organization should come from the CEO (or president), since his/her responsibilities cross all profit centers, business areas, functions, and sites.  But that would imply that his/her name go atop a significant number of communications – everything from an annual United Way appeal to the rollout of new product offerings and strategies.  Pretty soon, everyone is getting a weekly email from the CEO. 

            In the interests of making better use of intra-company email, I’d like to suggest the following rules:

• Is it too important to use email?  Email is so common in a corporate environment that there is little to distinguish between critically important information and superfluous or basic information. If it’s that important, consider other methods besides email, including group meetings, face-to-face chats, videoconferences, etc.
• ALL CAPS?  Are you guilty of TYPING IN ALL CAPS? or do you type everything in lower case even when referring to people by name? This is no more acceptable than it would be in a printed document. Follow the same rules. Otherwise, you run the risk of coming across as disrespectful or sloppy.
• Yes, spelling and grammar count. Grammar and spelling errors and typos in emails are as inexcusable as they are in any other business document. Spell check is imperfect. Has your spell check ever allowed “their” when it should have been “there,” or “now” instead of “not?” After using spell check, proofread what you have written and make sure it’s what you intend to say.
• To bcc or not to bcc.  Rather than listing dozens of recipients in the “to” or “cc” fields – some of whom might not appreciate having their email addresses shared so broadly – include these addresses in the “bcc” field instead.  Obviously, it’s a different story if everyone is from the same organization and expects to be copied on an email. Use your judgment.
• Don’t fight fire with fire.  Ever get a nasty email from someone? The temptation might be to respond quickly with an “Oh yeah? Says who?” type of email. The problems with that are two-fold. One, a hasty response might not be a fully considered one. Equally important, however, is that because some people are poor communicators by email, they might not even be angry. Better to use tact. If in doubt, give the person a phone call or visit them face-to-face to seek clarity.
• Bad news.  A major faux pas is delivering bad news by email, which in today’s environment can come across as cowardly, callous, or inappropriate. When you’ve got truly bad news or an emergency, either call the person(s) or tell them face-to-face.
• From the top. To assure 100 percent readership of communications from senior leadership that are truly important, adopt a clear delineation of the kinds of emails that should come from the top.  As a general rule, matters involving the state of the business (e.g., quarterly and annual reports) and significant news on the progress of a new corporate strategy justify the CEO as the source. In some cases, however, where it impacts the entire organization, having it come from the leadership team as an impersonal entity makes more sense. And, instead of writing a tome (like this blog entry), keep CEO communiqués as brief as possible. Provide a link to relevant intranet pages for additional information.
• Broadcast? The numbers of broadcast emails to an entire organization should be limited. I often hear that people receive too many such emails and that they deem them irrelevant – for instance, news of awards and rewards/recognition for individuals, or promotions of people within the company. In the end, you’ll need an arbiter. Corporate Communications should be the clearinghouse for all such communications, making the determination whether a particular email is truly of interest and value to the entire organization.  When in doubt, err on the side of fewer such communiqués. Better still, these kinds of communications should be shifted onto the company intranet web sites.

 Follow these basic rules and the value of your internal emails will rise.

The Internal Value of Corporate Charitable Giving

Perhaps out of a sense of obligation (i.e., “everyone else does it and so should we”), major public corporations are usually generous to a fault with their philanthropy, funding everything from local and national arts and cultural institutions, to pure science and medical research, and education.  

            Often this corporate giving reflects the organization’s business, such as medical device manufacturer giving money to medical research and hospitals. No one questions the legitimacy or value of such munificence.  But what many businesspeople fail to ask is whether its philanthropic gifts bring a good return on investment for the company and its stakeholders. 

            In other words, are businesses realizing full value for their philanthropy? I would bet that a survey of businesses would indicate the answer is most often “I don’t know,” or “what do you mean by that?”

            When asked why their organizations engage in their chosen philanthropies, most company spokespeople fumble for an answer – as though they had never contemplated the question – and offer only vague responses along the lines of “to be a responsible member of the community,” or “to give something back.” 

            That's all well and good, but I dare say they aren't communicating anything like that internally and that few employees could verbalize the rationale for their company’s corporate giving.

            Certainly altruism – “giving something back” – is admirable, but stockholders and directors expect to see returns on the investments their companies make, beyond the mere tax break it gives them. Charitable giving is no exception.

            As cynical as that may sound, I suggest that there are valuable returns to the donors, but that many companies either are not strategic about their giving, not cognizant of the returns, not fully exploiting their philanthropy, or not measuring its impact. 

            In some instances, customers implicitly or explicitly demand charitable giving as a precondition to doing business with individual companies. So philanthropy in such cases may be seen as the price of admission to certain markets. 

            Those types of returns are numerous, but the ones I concern myself with here center on the most important stakeholder audience: employees. How are companies leveraging their philanthropic efforts to engage their employees? What are the near- and long-term internal benefits to be realized through corporate philanthropy? 

            One mid-western manufacturer provides an excellent case study.  The company makes it a policy to take an active role in the cities and towns in which it has plants. One city (where its local facility employs some 6,000 citizens) once had a reputation for crime and poverty – before the company got involved.

            Over the course of several years of determined involvement and significant monetary gifts, the company played an integral role in turning the city around. Year-over-year declining crime statistics proved its impact.

            The company’s manager in charge of community involvement said that employees are encouraged to choose community efforts and activities in which to be involved – sometimes on company time. In some instances, the employees themselves identify those projects and, in turn, solicit the company for necessary funding.

            Employees are recognized and often rewarded for their community involvement and what they are able to achieve as individual contributors or members of teams helping out in community efforts. 

            Examples of these activities have included the renovation of city parks and recreation facilities, hands-on involvement in the local Head Start program, anti-crime work in cooperation with the local police department, and the creation and maintenance of an educational nature center and preserve.

            Though the manager didn’t say so, I think that the company has realized some important long-term benefits among its employees.

            Knowing that their employer was investing in, supporting and encouraging community involvement and out-reach no doubt increased their pride in, and loyalty and commitment to the company.

            By extension, we can assume that an employee working on the production line came to understand that the quality of his/her effort would have a direct and positive impact on the company’s bottom line and, therefore, its ability to continue being a contributing member of the very community in which the employee and his/her family live. 

            In other words, if employees can see the direct link between their contributions to the success of the company and its ability to give back to the community, they win and their community wins.  Not only is this employee sustaining a family with a steady paycheck from this company; this company is helping to improve the lives of the employee, his/her family, and neighbors.  And that’s quite a return on an investment, no matter how you measure it.