After college, I was thrilled to land a job as a newspaper reporter, even though the pay was paltry. In the years after the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein broke the Watergate story, being a reporter seemed like the sexiest, most exciting job for a recent college graduate.
While it certainly had its bracing moments, on balance it was a pretty tedious and boring job day-in and day-out. As a suburban beat reporter, I found myself sitting in interminable evening meetings of town finance committees, sewer commissions, school boards and the like, filing my stories, ever alert for a breaking Big Story. Aside from a couple of local crime stories, none came my way – which is kind of the way it is in that business.
While they certainly worked hard throughout the process of uncovering the Watergate mess, Woodward and Bernstein essentially got lucky to have their Big Story fall into their laps on a slow news night.
Sure, I got the chance to quench my desire to do lots of creative writing in fulfilling the obligation to write feature articles about local personalities and events. Yet I soon reached the conclusion that about 90 percent of my workday was spent on mundane tasks and, at best, about 10 percent involved truly interesting work – stuff that challenged me and helped me justify getting out of bed in the morning.
Over the years, I’ve reached a parallel conclusion about most work. Unless you’re among the small minority of people who are doing what you truly love, it’s likely that that 90/10 split holds true. Ninety percent of your workday consists of tending to tedious tasks and dealing with hassles that you’d rather not have to. The remaining 10 percent of your day involves doing what you want to do, being challenged, using the skills for which you have trained.
Okay, maybe you’ll quibble about the 90/10 split. Maybe you’ll say it’s 75/25 or 60/40. But I don’t think you’d disagree that much of the work that people do is banal, tedious and often a series of hassles getting in the way of letting them do what they excel at. I don’t want to be overly negative here because I know that there are plenty of people who enjoy their work, including the dull parts.
But my point is that this is a truism of work life that managers and leaders must always bear in mind. While it’s tempting to assume that everyone shares their enthusiasm for the organization and its vision, the truth is likely less than that.
The reality is that most people toiling on factory floors or in cubicles are showing up for the paycheck and benefits, trying to perform their jobs well and to their bosses’ satisfaction, hoping that they get the promotions and raises they feel they’ve earned or, in a time of economic crisis, hoping they don’t get laid off.
Communicating in such an environment then, it is critical to cut through the cynicism and ennui that inevitably exist in many corners of the organization, bred by the reality of people doing things they’d rather not be doing.
In an on-line discussion on the topic of communicating with employees, one fellow opined that leaders and managers must always strive to be “plain spoken” and honest in their communications, avoiding artificiality and obfuscation. I second that, but add the following corollary.
Yes, be honest and plainspoken. But equally important is making sure your communications are relevant to the target audience. Make it pertinent to peoples' location (in a multi-site company), their specific area of responsibility/function, their job title, etc. It is not helpful to communicate a carbon copy message to all audiences without accommodating the differences inherent in their position, responsibilities and location.
Relevance often is as easy as answering the #1 question on employees' minds, particularly during stressful times: "What does this mean to me?" The answer to that question obviously varies on the basis of the assorted factors of the specific job assignment.
Accommodating those differences in our communications can bring meaning to people, helping them connect the dots and find the connection between what they do and the larger purpose of the organization.
To that end, communications should be driven by centralized content (i.e., the big message) and localized relevance (i.e., linking the larger message to the everyday local realities that people deal with). You won’t erase the mundane banalities of people’s workaday realities, but you may open their eyes to the larger context so that they can better see "the big picture" and gain a better appreciation of purpose, even in the midst of the daily workplace tedium and hassles.
Insights and Ideas on Business and Employee Communications
Monday, August 3, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Triage in a Bad Economy
In a war zone or natural disaster, triage is a means of prioritizing critically injured people for appropriate treatment based on their relative need for care. It’s a supply-and-demand challenge: too many patients and too few doctors. Triage efficiently rations patient care in the context of insufficient resources to assure the best possible outcomes, though that does not necessarily mean optimal medical treatment for all.
Various inter-related considerations go into deciding who gets treatment. The number of patients versus the number of available medical personnel and equipment is the first consideration. Those with a chance of survival if treated immediately are given priority. Those least likely to survive are usually given enough attention to assure a modicum of comfort, but little more. Less severe cases are put on hold until the more endangered patients are stabilized.
Many businesses today are practicing their own version of triage, as they continue to bleed cash and customers in this difficult economy. For instance, many retail chains are shuttering under-performing franchises that have become an over-extension of their ability to serve now scarce customers; outlets unlikely to see a near-term reversal of fortune, while they continue to deplete precious cash flow. They must be pared from the system.
Internally, countless other triage-like decisions are made that impact all facets of the operation. Early on, when the revenue drop first becomes apparent, decisions focus on cutting back on or not doing things deemed superfluous or luxuries, such as regional sales conferences, corporate jets, certain training activities, and some travel.
Of course, when those kinds of cutbacks are found to be insufficient to staunch the bleeding, other interim steps are taken, such as cutting back on the use of some outside consultants, reducing or eliminating overtime, followed by asking people to take pay cuts. The last resort is to lay off full-time employees, akin to a medical amputation.
Amputation is not hyperbole. After having invested in hiring, training, and cultivating employees, cutting them loose represents a repudiation of that outlay. And, when business picks up again – as it always does – those investments will need to be made all over again.
While it’s certainly understandable to offset corporate losses by cutting back on expenses, it’s unwise to make generalizations about where, what and how to cut, especially when it comes to outside consultants, and that includes those who provide counsel on employee communications.
Certainly in the context of triage style layoffs, the retention of outsiders doesn’t play well among the remaining employees. People may ask, “Why is the company still spending money on consultants after it laid off long-time employees?”
It’s a valid question, but communications consultants can help managers deal with the chaos and uncertainty spawned by cutbacks and layoffs. Further, unlike full-time employees, the cost of consultants is a short-term investment and does not require additional overhead costs, such as benefits and office space.
Communications counsel can help managers in their quest to engage employees, and sustain employee relationships and trust through good times and bad – but especially during bad times. As noted in Weathering the Tough Economy, layoffs and wage and hiring freezes result in nervous and insecure employees everywhere, not always able to do their best work – which is the last thing a stressed organization needs. Businesses need their people to be at their best to surmount today’s complex challenges, and can’t afford disaffected or disconnected employees.
Managers and leaders must take some simple actions to counteract the unavoidable negative climate of fear that can set in and afflict even the best businesses under the cloud of budget cuts or a recent or potential layoff.
Re-engage the workforce in the business at hand by restating business goals and the strategies that will get you there. Remind them why you're in business. Bring the outside world in to re-emphasize the climate of uncertainty you’re operating under, including the challenges your customers, suppliers and competitors are facing.
Leadership should keep managers in the loop so there is a common understanding of the marketplace realities, the company's business strategy going forward, and the responsibilities of the employees to drive results.
In Keeping People Plugged In, I wrote that difficult times demand the best from everyone to help minimize the damage that this economy might visit upon an organization. Companies cannot afford to have employees distracted by fear of job loss.
Successful companies are those that keep employees engaged in the challenges at hand by communicating with them often and keeping them apprised of the evolving situation. Conversely, when employees are kept in the dark, left to read the tealeaves and draw their own conclusions, they usually infer the worst and operate accordingly.
Good communications go a long way toward keeping key people engaged in the tasks at hand, facing challenges head-on with their best talents. Companies that truly engage their people in the business challenges are those that will emerge from this current economy the strongest.
Various inter-related considerations go into deciding who gets treatment. The number of patients versus the number of available medical personnel and equipment is the first consideration. Those with a chance of survival if treated immediately are given priority. Those least likely to survive are usually given enough attention to assure a modicum of comfort, but little more. Less severe cases are put on hold until the more endangered patients are stabilized.
Many businesses today are practicing their own version of triage, as they continue to bleed cash and customers in this difficult economy. For instance, many retail chains are shuttering under-performing franchises that have become an over-extension of their ability to serve now scarce customers; outlets unlikely to see a near-term reversal of fortune, while they continue to deplete precious cash flow. They must be pared from the system.
Internally, countless other triage-like decisions are made that impact all facets of the operation. Early on, when the revenue drop first becomes apparent, decisions focus on cutting back on or not doing things deemed superfluous or luxuries, such as regional sales conferences, corporate jets, certain training activities, and some travel.
Of course, when those kinds of cutbacks are found to be insufficient to staunch the bleeding, other interim steps are taken, such as cutting back on the use of some outside consultants, reducing or eliminating overtime, followed by asking people to take pay cuts. The last resort is to lay off full-time employees, akin to a medical amputation.
Amputation is not hyperbole. After having invested in hiring, training, and cultivating employees, cutting them loose represents a repudiation of that outlay. And, when business picks up again – as it always does – those investments will need to be made all over again.
While it’s certainly understandable to offset corporate losses by cutting back on expenses, it’s unwise to make generalizations about where, what and how to cut, especially when it comes to outside consultants, and that includes those who provide counsel on employee communications.
Certainly in the context of triage style layoffs, the retention of outsiders doesn’t play well among the remaining employees. People may ask, “Why is the company still spending money on consultants after it laid off long-time employees?”
It’s a valid question, but communications consultants can help managers deal with the chaos and uncertainty spawned by cutbacks and layoffs. Further, unlike full-time employees, the cost of consultants is a short-term investment and does not require additional overhead costs, such as benefits and office space.
Communications counsel can help managers in their quest to engage employees, and sustain employee relationships and trust through good times and bad – but especially during bad times. As noted in Weathering the Tough Economy, layoffs and wage and hiring freezes result in nervous and insecure employees everywhere, not always able to do their best work – which is the last thing a stressed organization needs. Businesses need their people to be at their best to surmount today’s complex challenges, and can’t afford disaffected or disconnected employees.
Managers and leaders must take some simple actions to counteract the unavoidable negative climate of fear that can set in and afflict even the best businesses under the cloud of budget cuts or a recent or potential layoff.
Re-engage the workforce in the business at hand by restating business goals and the strategies that will get you there. Remind them why you're in business. Bring the outside world in to re-emphasize the climate of uncertainty you’re operating under, including the challenges your customers, suppliers and competitors are facing.
Leadership should keep managers in the loop so there is a common understanding of the marketplace realities, the company's business strategy going forward, and the responsibilities of the employees to drive results.
In Keeping People Plugged In, I wrote that difficult times demand the best from everyone to help minimize the damage that this economy might visit upon an organization. Companies cannot afford to have employees distracted by fear of job loss.
Successful companies are those that keep employees engaged in the challenges at hand by communicating with them often and keeping them apprised of the evolving situation. Conversely, when employees are kept in the dark, left to read the tealeaves and draw their own conclusions, they usually infer the worst and operate accordingly.
Good communications go a long way toward keeping key people engaged in the tasks at hand, facing challenges head-on with their best talents. Companies that truly engage their people in the business challenges are those that will emerge from this current economy the strongest.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Counsel Sometimes Falls on Deaf Ears
An online public relations and communications forum I occasionally follow recently kicked around the question of why CEOs don’t always follow our advice. Good one. But the answer is not simple, and none of the responses was brief. Let me answer here by way of a first-hand experience.
The CEO of a multi-site manufacturing firm asked for our help regarding an evolving internal situation. This union environment was facing stiff offshore competition, a new and increasingly difficult threat that was stealing long-time customers. But the employees didn’t appear to be responding with appropriate urgency. The CEO wanted us to assess the internal environment and make recommendations to achieve desired behavior changes.
During our first visit, we spoke with the senior leaders one at a time to get a sense of the story behind the story, and the messages they had been trying to get out to the employee audience. I was struck by something the CEO said. With complete confidence, he told us that his messages were well understood across the organization. When we asked how he knew that, he replied that he was the CEO. As the CEO, he had said what he said, so it was heard and understood. (See my earlier blog entry, I Speak, You Listen.)
Ignoring his overt arrogance, we sought and received permission to conduct informal discussions with groups of employees at several locations to determine whether the key messages were in fact getting through to the intended audience and, more important, whether those messages were understood.
As we learned, the CEO was wrong. What he thought he was communicating achieved the opposite effect of what he had sought. There was a disconnect somewhere along the lines of communication, a barrier to the full import of leadership messages reaching their target audience with their intended effect. In the end, the urgent messages about the changing competitive environment were being met with skepticism and, in some quarters, open ridicule.
After a thorough analysis, we presented our findings to the CEO, along with recommendations for implementing an aggressive new internal communications strategy intended to address the credibility problem head-on. He thanked us for our work, promised to study our recommendations, and said he would get back to us.
Fast-forward 12 months. We hadn’t heard from the CEO so we assumed he and his team had implemented our recommendations without our assistance – which was certainly their prerogative.
So imagine our surprise when he called us in a panic one day. Union negotiators had walked out of contract negotiations and threatened to strike if their terms were not met. How could we help?
Long story short, our recommendations had not been implemented and management’s lack of credibility had continued to fester, until it reached a flash point around contract talks when they sought to inject marketplace realities for a new, less restrictive contract.
The union opposed what it saw as “give-backs” and was arguing its case in the local media. Meanwhile, the company remained silent publicly, refusing comment when the media sought it. The result was a one-sided story, with the company portrayed as the bad guy.
After completing our quick assessment, management enacted our recommendations to go public with the full story, countering the union’s case point-by-point through a series of full-page “advertorials” in local newspapers, as well as face-to-face meetings between the CEO, his negotiators and the local press.
The tide quickly turned and the company got control of the public dialogue. Ultimately, the new contract was approved with the necessary changes. But the original internal credibility problem still existed.
When the dust settled, we reintroduced our original recommendations to address the inherent problem of credibility. This time, lesson learned, they were enacted.
So the short answer to the forum topic is that, as outside consultants, we certainly hope and expect the CEO to enact our recommendations. But in the end, the CEO will do what he or she thinks best in the larger context in which the company operates. Sometimes, however, it takes a dose of the real world to bring our counsel into sharp focus for our client to act on it.
The CEO of a multi-site manufacturing firm asked for our help regarding an evolving internal situation. This union environment was facing stiff offshore competition, a new and increasingly difficult threat that was stealing long-time customers. But the employees didn’t appear to be responding with appropriate urgency. The CEO wanted us to assess the internal environment and make recommendations to achieve desired behavior changes.
During our first visit, we spoke with the senior leaders one at a time to get a sense of the story behind the story, and the messages they had been trying to get out to the employee audience. I was struck by something the CEO said. With complete confidence, he told us that his messages were well understood across the organization. When we asked how he knew that, he replied that he was the CEO. As the CEO, he had said what he said, so it was heard and understood. (See my earlier blog entry, I Speak, You Listen.)
Ignoring his overt arrogance, we sought and received permission to conduct informal discussions with groups of employees at several locations to determine whether the key messages were in fact getting through to the intended audience and, more important, whether those messages were understood.
As we learned, the CEO was wrong. What he thought he was communicating achieved the opposite effect of what he had sought. There was a disconnect somewhere along the lines of communication, a barrier to the full import of leadership messages reaching their target audience with their intended effect. In the end, the urgent messages about the changing competitive environment were being met with skepticism and, in some quarters, open ridicule.
After a thorough analysis, we presented our findings to the CEO, along with recommendations for implementing an aggressive new internal communications strategy intended to address the credibility problem head-on. He thanked us for our work, promised to study our recommendations, and said he would get back to us.
Fast-forward 12 months. We hadn’t heard from the CEO so we assumed he and his team had implemented our recommendations without our assistance – which was certainly their prerogative.
So imagine our surprise when he called us in a panic one day. Union negotiators had walked out of contract negotiations and threatened to strike if their terms were not met. How could we help?
Long story short, our recommendations had not been implemented and management’s lack of credibility had continued to fester, until it reached a flash point around contract talks when they sought to inject marketplace realities for a new, less restrictive contract.
The union opposed what it saw as “give-backs” and was arguing its case in the local media. Meanwhile, the company remained silent publicly, refusing comment when the media sought it. The result was a one-sided story, with the company portrayed as the bad guy.
After completing our quick assessment, management enacted our recommendations to go public with the full story, countering the union’s case point-by-point through a series of full-page “advertorials” in local newspapers, as well as face-to-face meetings between the CEO, his negotiators and the local press.
The tide quickly turned and the company got control of the public dialogue. Ultimately, the new contract was approved with the necessary changes. But the original internal credibility problem still existed.
When the dust settled, we reintroduced our original recommendations to address the inherent problem of credibility. This time, lesson learned, they were enacted.
So the short answer to the forum topic is that, as outside consultants, we certainly hope and expect the CEO to enact our recommendations. But in the end, the CEO will do what he or she thinks best in the larger context in which the company operates. Sometimes, however, it takes a dose of the real world to bring our counsel into sharp focus for our client to act on it.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
More on BlackBerry Etiquette
From Jeff Stahler, in the June 24 edition of the Columbus (OH) Dispatch:
Similarly, in an interview published in the Sunday New York Times (June 28), Daniel Amos, CEO of AFLAC, is quoted on the subject of his BlackBerry use:
Similarly, in an interview published in the Sunday New York Times (June 28), Daniel Amos, CEO of AFLAC, is quoted on the subject of his BlackBerry use:
Q. Are you a gadget person?
A. I didn’t think I would be. I didn’t get on BlackBerry until maybe two years ago. I’m so hooked on it I can’t stand it. If that red light goes on, I’ve got to know what’s going on.
Q. How do you break the habit?
A. You leave it at home if you’re going out to dinner or else get a divorce. I say that in jest, but really, I think you have to. I hate to leave it at home, but in our society, if the conversation lulls for a second — then let me see what’s happening in the world — I’m not sure it’s good for us.
By the way, apropos of employee communications, Amos makes an insightful comment:
"...make sure you motivate people because they ultimately are getting the job done for you. In business, you should treat your employees like they can vote. It doesn’t mean you’re going to get everybody to vote for you. But you kind of try to kiss the babies and shake the hands and tell ’em you appreciate ’em and would like them to support you."
Friday, June 26, 2009
Be Here Now
Imagine this scene. You’re deep in a conversation with a colleague in his office. You’re both totally focused on dealing with an issue, when suddenly someone barges in and interrupts, demanding your immediate attention.
Do you engage the interrupter, ignoring the person you were previously talking to? Of course not. That would be considered rude. In fact, most civilized people do not interrupt in that manner, unless it is to convey some urgent news, like there’s a bomb threat and you have to evacuate the building.
So why do we allow incoming emails on our BlackBerrys and iPhones interrupt what we are doing in the moment, particularly when that moment involves other people?
I remember a client meeting I once attended involving key personnel for the business unit’s monthly update. Participants represented all aspects of the operation.
The national sales manager walked in carrying his over-flowing in-box and placed a wastebasket next to his chair before sitting. He then proceeded to go through the entire in-box, disposing of this document or that, penciling notes on another, and so on throughout the meeting.
I was appalled by his rudeness, and further by the fact that the man running the meeting – his boss – allowed it to continue. But isn’t that the equivalent of people in a meeting, reading and sending emails on their PDAs? In my mind, there is no difference. The PDA is just more subtle than a hulking in-box.
Similarly, what do you make of a boss who postpones discussion of an urgent topic with you until he next sees you. And then, when you finally get to see him, he spends the entire meeting staring at his BlackBerry, scanning a series of messages and answering some of them? Is he more focused on you and the issue at hand, or the extraneous email that pops up on his BlackBerry? Will his response fully reflect the information you've given him? Not likely.
The title of this entry is borrowed from the 1971 book by the same name, Be Here Now, by Baba Ram Dass, née Richard Alpert, about his experience in Eastern religions and his discovery of the importance of being present in the moment. It’s a core truth not just for those seeking spiritual enlightenment but in business as well. It is the imperative of being here now, being present in the moment for yourself and, more importantly, for the people you work with.
If organizational communications are to be effective, everyone must engage completely, not half-way. Persistent use of PDAs when you should be engaging other people is, in my mind, half-way – perhaps less.
Some people brag about their ability to “multi-task.” I push back. You may think you’re able to do two or three things at once, but you are not doing them as well as you might if you were focused on just one of them. These same people insist that they can follow the thread of the meeting while on their BlackBerry. I doubt it. While they may glean the gist of what’s being said, they will miss the nuance and subtlety of the discussion.
And that’s to say nothing about the disrespect they show their colleagues as their attention focuses elsewhere.
The core subject of this blog is communications and how we can become better communicators, and use communications to be more effective businesspeople.
It is a continuing frustration for me as a communications consultant to have to deal with this on-going rudeness, not so much for the fact that I feel it is a sign of disrespect as it is an indication of someone’s inability to focus, to Be Here Now in the moment with me and other colleagues and fully participate in the issues at hand, engaging us and the topic completely.
A manager’s inability or lack of desire to control use of PDAs in meetings is a manager that likely has other issues impeding communications and, therefore, his/her ability to operate effectively as a manager.
I raise the issue because of a story earlier this week in the New York Times titled “Mind Your BlackBerry or Mind Your Manners” about the ubiquity of BlackBerrys, iPhones and the like in our modern business world and people’s propensity to focus on them at all times.
The article (thankfully) notes, “A spirited debate about etiquette has broken out. Traditionalists say the use of BlackBerrys and iPhones in meetings is as gauche as ordering out for pizza. Techno-evangelists insist that to ignore real-time text messages in a need-it-yesterday world is to invite peril.”
I side with the traditionalists. As this article adds, increasingly organizations and managers are demanding a “BlackBerrys off” policy for their meetings. Ford CEO Allan Mulally orders his direct reports to turn off their BlackBerrys for his weekly team meeting. And I'm sure he's not alone in that edict.
I heartily endorse that approach, counsel my clients similarly, and hope it will spread with the same speed as did the No Smoking in meetings policy in the 1980s and 90s.
Just as cigarette smoke once polluted the atmosphere of business meetings, so too do PDAs now. Perhaps we can hope for the day when the use of BlackBerrys in meetings will go the way of smoking in meetings so that we can all Be Here Now.
Do you engage the interrupter, ignoring the person you were previously talking to? Of course not. That would be considered rude. In fact, most civilized people do not interrupt in that manner, unless it is to convey some urgent news, like there’s a bomb threat and you have to evacuate the building.
So why do we allow incoming emails on our BlackBerrys and iPhones interrupt what we are doing in the moment, particularly when that moment involves other people?
I remember a client meeting I once attended involving key personnel for the business unit’s monthly update. Participants represented all aspects of the operation.
The national sales manager walked in carrying his over-flowing in-box and placed a wastebasket next to his chair before sitting. He then proceeded to go through the entire in-box, disposing of this document or that, penciling notes on another, and so on throughout the meeting.
I was appalled by his rudeness, and further by the fact that the man running the meeting – his boss – allowed it to continue. But isn’t that the equivalent of people in a meeting, reading and sending emails on their PDAs? In my mind, there is no difference. The PDA is just more subtle than a hulking in-box.
Similarly, what do you make of a boss who postpones discussion of an urgent topic with you until he next sees you. And then, when you finally get to see him, he spends the entire meeting staring at his BlackBerry, scanning a series of messages and answering some of them? Is he more focused on you and the issue at hand, or the extraneous email that pops up on his BlackBerry? Will his response fully reflect the information you've given him? Not likely.
The title of this entry is borrowed from the 1971 book by the same name, Be Here Now, by Baba Ram Dass, née Richard Alpert, about his experience in Eastern religions and his discovery of the importance of being present in the moment. It’s a core truth not just for those seeking spiritual enlightenment but in business as well. It is the imperative of being here now, being present in the moment for yourself and, more importantly, for the people you work with.
If organizational communications are to be effective, everyone must engage completely, not half-way. Persistent use of PDAs when you should be engaging other people is, in my mind, half-way – perhaps less.
Some people brag about their ability to “multi-task.” I push back. You may think you’re able to do two or three things at once, but you are not doing them as well as you might if you were focused on just one of them. These same people insist that they can follow the thread of the meeting while on their BlackBerry. I doubt it. While they may glean the gist of what’s being said, they will miss the nuance and subtlety of the discussion.
And that’s to say nothing about the disrespect they show their colleagues as their attention focuses elsewhere.
The core subject of this blog is communications and how we can become better communicators, and use communications to be more effective businesspeople.
It is a continuing frustration for me as a communications consultant to have to deal with this on-going rudeness, not so much for the fact that I feel it is a sign of disrespect as it is an indication of someone’s inability to focus, to Be Here Now in the moment with me and other colleagues and fully participate in the issues at hand, engaging us and the topic completely.
A manager’s inability or lack of desire to control use of PDAs in meetings is a manager that likely has other issues impeding communications and, therefore, his/her ability to operate effectively as a manager.
I raise the issue because of a story earlier this week in the New York Times titled “Mind Your BlackBerry or Mind Your Manners” about the ubiquity of BlackBerrys, iPhones and the like in our modern business world and people’s propensity to focus on them at all times.
The article (thankfully) notes, “A spirited debate about etiquette has broken out. Traditionalists say the use of BlackBerrys and iPhones in meetings is as gauche as ordering out for pizza. Techno-evangelists insist that to ignore real-time text messages in a need-it-yesterday world is to invite peril.”
I side with the traditionalists. As this article adds, increasingly organizations and managers are demanding a “BlackBerrys off” policy for their meetings. Ford CEO Allan Mulally orders his direct reports to turn off their BlackBerrys for his weekly team meeting. And I'm sure he's not alone in that edict.
I heartily endorse that approach, counsel my clients similarly, and hope it will spread with the same speed as did the No Smoking in meetings policy in the 1980s and 90s.
Just as cigarette smoke once polluted the atmosphere of business meetings, so too do PDAs now. Perhaps we can hope for the day when the use of BlackBerrys in meetings will go the way of smoking in meetings so that we can all Be Here Now.
Monday, June 15, 2009
"I Speak. You Listen."
The conventional understanding of employee communications can be summed up in four words: “I speak. You listen.”
In other words, many people believe that employee communications is simply top-down, with messages and information emanating from senior managers for consumption by the broad mass of employees. This approach assumes that…
Nothing could be further from the truth. Assumptions like that are presumptuous, arrogant and have a tendency to sneak up behind you and bite you when you least expect it. It’s never good for business.
In fact, effective employee communications involves a hierarchy of responsibilities for everyone in the organization, from the CEO to the individual front line employee; a hierarchy that develops and sustains on-going dialogues, discussion and debate up, down and across the organization, among and between leadership, managers, supervisors and employees.
A couple years ago, we were working with a client and helped them see the truth in this and then helped them implement it – to their enormous benefit, I might add. The hierarchy of responsibilities we developed with them, with a few tweaks, could be adopted for any organization’s communications.
It begins in the executive suite, with the establishment of strategy, direction toward achieving that strategy, the story behind it, and the rules of engagement – i.e., how the business and people will operate in the quest.
For their part, managers must comprehend and activate the strategy, interpreting it for their respective teams and/or business units to make it relevant, and then engage their teams regularly in discussion, dialogue and debate to make it real.
Managers must also establish mid-point and end targets for their teams to aim for, how they will measure progress toward those targets, and adjust as events and needs dictate. To this last point, that means that managers must pay attention to where the business is going, where their industry is headed, the effects of the current economy on both, and how employees are impacted.
At the same time, managers must encourage a two-way conversation by asking employees the right questions, and jointly identifying problems, challenges, opportunities and gaps early.
The last segment of the hierarchy of responsibilities – that of the employees – is the one most often overlooked. In fact, without it, communications, no matter how well planned, will fail.
Employees’ responsibilities demand that they be independent thinkers. They need to be actively engaged in the business at all times, conscious of its health as well as that of its market and industry.
Employees must be active listeners, with a strong desire for continuous learning. And lastly, rather than just bring problems to their supervisors, they must pose ideas, suggestions and solutions.
This set of responsibilities is key. This is employee engagement.
It’s not enough just to announce a directive that employees be engaged. Employee engagement in a healthy operation is a state of affairs where information flows readily up, down and across the organization, without a lot of impediments or formalities about who can and cannot talk to whom. It’s where people feel valued, regardless of their role, where their ideas, suggestions and solutions are welcomed, even if they can’t be acted on for whatever reason.
Employees are emotionally tied to the business, conscious of their own connection to its welfare and how their performance contributes to its success… or failure.
It’s an organization where their good work is rewarded, not just with promotions and pay increases but also with recognition and acknowledgement. (See below: Communicate with your Employees – Doctor’s Orders and Just Say Thank You.) In the end, isn’t that why we do what we do – to contribute to and be part of a healthy, thriving organization, and be appreciated for it?
In other words, many people believe that employee communications is simply top-down, with messages and information emanating from senior managers for consumption by the broad mass of employees. This approach assumes that…
- Individual employees will actually receive the message when they are supposed to receive it.
- They will understand it.
- They will know what to do as a result of getting it.
- They will act accordingly.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Assumptions like that are presumptuous, arrogant and have a tendency to sneak up behind you and bite you when you least expect it. It’s never good for business.
In fact, effective employee communications involves a hierarchy of responsibilities for everyone in the organization, from the CEO to the individual front line employee; a hierarchy that develops and sustains on-going dialogues, discussion and debate up, down and across the organization, among and between leadership, managers, supervisors and employees.
A couple years ago, we were working with a client and helped them see the truth in this and then helped them implement it – to their enormous benefit, I might add. The hierarchy of responsibilities we developed with them, with a few tweaks, could be adopted for any organization’s communications.
It begins in the executive suite, with the establishment of strategy, direction toward achieving that strategy, the story behind it, and the rules of engagement – i.e., how the business and people will operate in the quest.
For their part, managers must comprehend and activate the strategy, interpreting it for their respective teams and/or business units to make it relevant, and then engage their teams regularly in discussion, dialogue and debate to make it real.
Managers must also establish mid-point and end targets for their teams to aim for, how they will measure progress toward those targets, and adjust as events and needs dictate. To this last point, that means that managers must pay attention to where the business is going, where their industry is headed, the effects of the current economy on both, and how employees are impacted.
At the same time, managers must encourage a two-way conversation by asking employees the right questions, and jointly identifying problems, challenges, opportunities and gaps early.
The last segment of the hierarchy of responsibilities – that of the employees – is the one most often overlooked. In fact, without it, communications, no matter how well planned, will fail.
Employees’ responsibilities demand that they be independent thinkers. They need to be actively engaged in the business at all times, conscious of its health as well as that of its market and industry.
Employees must be active listeners, with a strong desire for continuous learning. And lastly, rather than just bring problems to their supervisors, they must pose ideas, suggestions and solutions.
This set of responsibilities is key. This is employee engagement.
It’s not enough just to announce a directive that employees be engaged. Employee engagement in a healthy operation is a state of affairs where information flows readily up, down and across the organization, without a lot of impediments or formalities about who can and cannot talk to whom. It’s where people feel valued, regardless of their role, where their ideas, suggestions and solutions are welcomed, even if they can’t be acted on for whatever reason.
Employees are emotionally tied to the business, conscious of their own connection to its welfare and how their performance contributes to its success… or failure.
It’s an organization where their good work is rewarded, not just with promotions and pay increases but also with recognition and acknowledgement. (See below: Communicate with your Employees – Doctor’s Orders and Just Say Thank You.) In the end, isn’t that why we do what we do – to contribute to and be part of a healthy, thriving organization, and be appreciated for it?
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The Boilerplate Communications Plan
An on-line discussion group about employee communications recently elicited the following panicked, clearly last minute call for help: “Does anyone have a good communication plan they'd be willing to share?”
The notion that there is a one-size-fits-all approach to communication planning is absurd and flies in the face of rational thought. A boilerplate plan will never work because no two situations are the same. Like trying to sell wingtips to the customer that needs running shoes, they may be shoes, but they’re not what the situation calls for and can’t fulfill the intended purpose.
Think of the multitude of possibilities. Are we talking about a financial institution or a process industry; unionized employees in a single factory, or field salespeople working on commission spread across a continent selling medical equipment? Are we trying to communicate with mid-level managers at an international insurance company, or non-commissioned US Army officers based outside the country?
The point of any communications plan is to ensure that the right information gets to the right people at the right time through means that reach them effectively. There is a practical way to develop an appropriate communications plan for any given set of circumstances. But it requires some legwork, along with serious thought and analysis. The initial steps are always the same, regardless of the circumstances.
The default approach should always be face-to-face communications from immediate supervisors where credibility is highest and where there is the best opportunity for dialogue and question-and-answer. Everything else you may do (e.g., newsletter, email, Twitter, blogs, Intranet postings, bulletin boards, posters, etc.) should come later to reinforce and supplement what was already communicated directly by supervisors.
Your first communication then would be to the supervisors themselves, face-to-face from their superiors, to ensure that they are fully informed and on board – with no doubts or misunderstandings. Also, the supervisors must know what needs to be achieved, and what the employees need to know, do and feel, and – most important – why they need to know it.
Avoid the path of least resistance (i.e., the easy route), a trap that many fall into. Don’t rely on impersonal vehicles like emails as the first and/or only source of communication. Focus instead on getting supervisor understanding and buy-in first so that they will be confident in conveying the necessary information to their direct reports, able to field both pertinent and extraneous questions.
Also, prepare the supervisors with questions they may likely get, along with the appropriate answers. Supervisors should also understand that if they field questions they can't answer, they should promise to get the answer and then follow through.
I hope that’s what the on-line inquirer was looking for. But by the tone of his question, I think he wanted a shortcut and, when he didn’t get the boilerplate plan he was looking for, probably just fired off a bunch of emails to his target audience with his fingers crossed, hoping for the best.
That would be a shame because, really, the answer to his question is pretty straightforward. The key to successful communications is understanding your audience and what you want them to do with the information you give them. It really is that simple.
The notion that there is a one-size-fits-all approach to communication planning is absurd and flies in the face of rational thought. A boilerplate plan will never work because no two situations are the same. Like trying to sell wingtips to the customer that needs running shoes, they may be shoes, but they’re not what the situation calls for and can’t fulfill the intended purpose.
Think of the multitude of possibilities. Are we talking about a financial institution or a process industry; unionized employees in a single factory, or field salespeople working on commission spread across a continent selling medical equipment? Are we trying to communicate with mid-level managers at an international insurance company, or non-commissioned US Army officers based outside the country?
The point of any communications plan is to ensure that the right information gets to the right people at the right time through means that reach them effectively. There is a practical way to develop an appropriate communications plan for any given set of circumstances. But it requires some legwork, along with serious thought and analysis. The initial steps are always the same, regardless of the circumstances.
- Who is your audience? Define it both specifically and generally, in ways that mean something to you and your management team – such as those variables cited above.
- Make sure you know as much as possible about your target audience, especially how they prefer to get information.
- Determine what it is you want them to know, and what you want them to do and/or feel as a result of getting your communication, and why.
- Is there any time sensitivity in the communication?
The default approach should always be face-to-face communications from immediate supervisors where credibility is highest and where there is the best opportunity for dialogue and question-and-answer. Everything else you may do (e.g., newsletter, email, Twitter, blogs, Intranet postings, bulletin boards, posters, etc.) should come later to reinforce and supplement what was already communicated directly by supervisors.
Your first communication then would be to the supervisors themselves, face-to-face from their superiors, to ensure that they are fully informed and on board – with no doubts or misunderstandings. Also, the supervisors must know what needs to be achieved, and what the employees need to know, do and feel, and – most important – why they need to know it.
Avoid the path of least resistance (i.e., the easy route), a trap that many fall into. Don’t rely on impersonal vehicles like emails as the first and/or only source of communication. Focus instead on getting supervisor understanding and buy-in first so that they will be confident in conveying the necessary information to their direct reports, able to field both pertinent and extraneous questions.
Also, prepare the supervisors with questions they may likely get, along with the appropriate answers. Supervisors should also understand that if they field questions they can't answer, they should promise to get the answer and then follow through.
I hope that’s what the on-line inquirer was looking for. But by the tone of his question, I think he wanted a shortcut and, when he didn’t get the boilerplate plan he was looking for, probably just fired off a bunch of emails to his target audience with his fingers crossed, hoping for the best.
That would be a shame because, really, the answer to his question is pretty straightforward. The key to successful communications is understanding your audience and what you want them to do with the information you give them. It really is that simple.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Keeping People Plugged In
It’s anybody’s guess how long the current economic malaise will be with us, or how deeply it will affect our employers and careers. Depending on whom you work for and your industry, you may either be feeling paranoid, secure, or something in between.
As noted previously here, these difficult times demand the best from everyone to help minimize the damage that this economy might visit upon an organization. Companies cannot afford to have employees distracted by fear of job loss, or by spending the workday looking for other opportunities.
Successful companies are those that keep employees engaged in the challenges at hand by communicating often and keeping them well apprised of the evolving situation. Conversely, when employees are kept in the dark, left to read the tealeaves and draw their own conclusions, they usually infer the worst and operate accordingly.
In this regard, I must remark on the communications of one senior manager in particular. An acquaintance of mine is on the sales team at this company and has shared a selection of email missives from his boss, the VP for North American sales. This man’s communiqués are effective, for a number of reasons.
It’s tough to stay in touch with a sales team spread across a large continent, so he relies on email, phone calls and an annual sales conference. He writes a weekly email update for his entire North American sales force, as well as miscellaneous notes now and then. In addition, there is a steady stream of timely personal emails and phone calls to individual salespeople. Collectively, this steady flow of communication keeps his team informed and plugged in – exactly what a manager should do, particularly during tough times.
Each weekly update highlights the recent sales “wins” and serves up ample helpings of plaudits for all those involved. It mentions current efforts to close a particular sale, or the on-going efforts of an individual rep to establish and build credibility at an account currently held by a competitor.
The updates also include year-over-year sales data, as well as mentions of sales people’s outside activities, especially those that give back to their local communities. Personal news is included, such as someone’s 25th anniversary with the company. And people are encouraged to submit ideas, evidenced by their frequent citations in the weekly emails.
But I was particularly impressed with a note this sales VP sent out last week about the state of the economy and how it is affecting the company and its future. Without coming right out and saying so, the VP was clearly answering a lot of unasked questions that are nagging at his sales force as they face diminished sales opportunities. No doubt he gleaned these through his regular interactions with them.
After writing initially about the economy’s effects on their industry, he went on to say that the company was, like most, facing significant challenges maintaining momentum in the face of a tough economy. It is making a number of cost cuts and difficult choices, he wrote. But, as he explained, each cut had been made intelligently, with a full appreciation of its impact. He also thanked the team for offering some very good suggestions for saving money and then cited those that had been selected by the executive team for enactment across the entire company.
He closed the note by reminding his team that they are best when they unite in a common effort, and expressed the opinion that they are, as a team, well positioned to ride out the storm and emerge stronger afterwards.
As an outside observer, reading these communiqués, the sense comes through clearly that there is a well-established avenue of communication between and among the head of sales and his team and, consequently, a lot of mutual trust. My friend’s positive attitude about the company and its long-term prospects reinforce my impression. He and the rest of the sales team are able to maintain the long view rather than focus on the negative of the moment.
There is a genuineness that comes through in these many communiqués, a real sense of empathy and understanding that is often missing in executive communications. I also know that the VP of sales is warmly regarded by his team and is very personable at the group’s annual sales conferences.
I regret I cannot reveal the company or the sales leader responsible for this quality communications. But I do feel I can cite it anonymously as an example of the kind of communications that need to be practiced – in good times and, especially, bad – to assure a common sense of purpose among employees and their management.
It’s not the only route out of a sour economy, but good communications sure go a long way toward keeping key people engaged in the task at hand, facing challenges head-on with their best talents. If more companies and managers operated as this gentleman does, I’m confident that fewer companies would be on the precipice, as there now seem to be.
As noted previously here, these difficult times demand the best from everyone to help minimize the damage that this economy might visit upon an organization. Companies cannot afford to have employees distracted by fear of job loss, or by spending the workday looking for other opportunities.
Successful companies are those that keep employees engaged in the challenges at hand by communicating often and keeping them well apprised of the evolving situation. Conversely, when employees are kept in the dark, left to read the tealeaves and draw their own conclusions, they usually infer the worst and operate accordingly.
In this regard, I must remark on the communications of one senior manager in particular. An acquaintance of mine is on the sales team at this company and has shared a selection of email missives from his boss, the VP for North American sales. This man’s communiqués are effective, for a number of reasons.
It’s tough to stay in touch with a sales team spread across a large continent, so he relies on email, phone calls and an annual sales conference. He writes a weekly email update for his entire North American sales force, as well as miscellaneous notes now and then. In addition, there is a steady stream of timely personal emails and phone calls to individual salespeople. Collectively, this steady flow of communication keeps his team informed and plugged in – exactly what a manager should do, particularly during tough times.
Each weekly update highlights the recent sales “wins” and serves up ample helpings of plaudits for all those involved. It mentions current efforts to close a particular sale, or the on-going efforts of an individual rep to establish and build credibility at an account currently held by a competitor.
The updates also include year-over-year sales data, as well as mentions of sales people’s outside activities, especially those that give back to their local communities. Personal news is included, such as someone’s 25th anniversary with the company. And people are encouraged to submit ideas, evidenced by their frequent citations in the weekly emails.
But I was particularly impressed with a note this sales VP sent out last week about the state of the economy and how it is affecting the company and its future. Without coming right out and saying so, the VP was clearly answering a lot of unasked questions that are nagging at his sales force as they face diminished sales opportunities. No doubt he gleaned these through his regular interactions with them.
After writing initially about the economy’s effects on their industry, he went on to say that the company was, like most, facing significant challenges maintaining momentum in the face of a tough economy. It is making a number of cost cuts and difficult choices, he wrote. But, as he explained, each cut had been made intelligently, with a full appreciation of its impact. He also thanked the team for offering some very good suggestions for saving money and then cited those that had been selected by the executive team for enactment across the entire company.
He closed the note by reminding his team that they are best when they unite in a common effort, and expressed the opinion that they are, as a team, well positioned to ride out the storm and emerge stronger afterwards.
As an outside observer, reading these communiqués, the sense comes through clearly that there is a well-established avenue of communication between and among the head of sales and his team and, consequently, a lot of mutual trust. My friend’s positive attitude about the company and its long-term prospects reinforce my impression. He and the rest of the sales team are able to maintain the long view rather than focus on the negative of the moment.
There is a genuineness that comes through in these many communiqués, a real sense of empathy and understanding that is often missing in executive communications. I also know that the VP of sales is warmly regarded by his team and is very personable at the group’s annual sales conferences.
I regret I cannot reveal the company or the sales leader responsible for this quality communications. But I do feel I can cite it anonymously as an example of the kind of communications that need to be practiced – in good times and, especially, bad – to assure a common sense of purpose among employees and their management.
It’s not the only route out of a sour economy, but good communications sure go a long way toward keeping key people engaged in the task at hand, facing challenges head-on with their best talents. If more companies and managers operated as this gentleman does, I’m confident that fewer companies would be on the precipice, as there now seem to be.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Getting Full Value from Communications Counsel
A business is launched on a core vision, a driving purpose – likely the brainchild of its founder. Initial success comes with the founder’s ability to activate that vision.
As the business grows and adds employees, its continued success and growth is dependent on how well the founder is able to impart his/her vision to the new people so that they, too, share that founding vision and are able to act on it through effective implementation of the company’s strategy.
Regardless of whether the business is 10 years old, like Google, or is more than 100 years old, like General Electric, the same holds true: the continued success of that company is dependent on employees comprehending and acting on that vision.
Visions evolve and adapt to changing circumstances, such as recessionary economies, changing or expanding markets, shifts in customer needs and tastes, etc. And so, too, must the company help employees evolve and adapt. Even the 100-year-old company can stay as fresh, focused and competitive as the new start-up if it keeps its people engaged in the evolving vision.
This is a round-about way of getting to my point: the importance of also engaging employee communications consultants in the business’ core vision, as well as its strategy, the needs and desires of its customers, and the changing dynamics of its markets.
A consultant comes into an organization for a discrete period of time, provides advice and counsel, and then leaves. The ideal is where the outsider is able to be immersed fully in the business, gaining understanding of and a full appreciation for its products and services, markets, customers, and unique challenges.
From the perspective of a communications consultant, those are the best assignments, in terms of enjoying and gaining personal satisfaction from the work, and in terms of our ability to provide helpful counsel.
Regardless of the product or service a client company sells, the ability to appreciate the circumstances in which that company operates brings with it valuable insights into the struggles and challenges, risks, victories and mistakes that comprise the daily experience of employees. Our communications counsel is far more insightful and meaningful when we know that experience intimately as opposed to those cases where we do not have that advantage.
Kept at arms' length from the business and given little opportunity to immerse ourselves, the communications counsel provided is necessarily superficial. Most of the work in these cases tends to be rote, tactical and reactive. Further, there is little pleasure in the assignment. It's more of a struggle, where we’re not allowed to do our best work.
There’s often no way of knowing ahead of time into which category a new client will fall. But there might be some early tip-offs. When the new client talks about the need to “catch a speeding train,” employs a similar metaphor, or says there’s no time “for the luxury” of immersing ourselves in the business, it’s likely it will be a tactically intensive assignment with little chance to connect personally, or provide insightful strategic counsel.
Conversely, the client open to the notion of allowing the consultant a full engagement in the business, to talk with employees prior to commencing the assignment is going to get full value for the investment because the outside consultant will gain important awareness and understanding of the employees’ environment, challenges and personal connection to the business.
Most companies of any size employ full-time communications managers. Outside communications consultants are brought in not to replicate or supplement their work but rather to provide the outsider’s perspective that the insider cannot possibly have. That’s where the full value comes in: being able to understand fully the business’ vision, mission, strategy, challenges, markets, and customer demands, and then translate that into meaningful communications strategies and messages to keep employees engaged in the business.
In other words, the deeper, first-hand appreciation for the personal investments that each employee makes in the job is the key to engaging the employees in dialogue and discussion, and being better equipped to shape the right messages to assure that employees are getting the right information, insights and knowledge at the right time, through the right media for maximum effect.
And if that’s what the client is paying for, why erect barriers?
As the business grows and adds employees, its continued success and growth is dependent on how well the founder is able to impart his/her vision to the new people so that they, too, share that founding vision and are able to act on it through effective implementation of the company’s strategy.
Regardless of whether the business is 10 years old, like Google, or is more than 100 years old, like General Electric, the same holds true: the continued success of that company is dependent on employees comprehending and acting on that vision.
Visions evolve and adapt to changing circumstances, such as recessionary economies, changing or expanding markets, shifts in customer needs and tastes, etc. And so, too, must the company help employees evolve and adapt. Even the 100-year-old company can stay as fresh, focused and competitive as the new start-up if it keeps its people engaged in the evolving vision.
This is a round-about way of getting to my point: the importance of also engaging employee communications consultants in the business’ core vision, as well as its strategy, the needs and desires of its customers, and the changing dynamics of its markets.
A consultant comes into an organization for a discrete period of time, provides advice and counsel, and then leaves. The ideal is where the outsider is able to be immersed fully in the business, gaining understanding of and a full appreciation for its products and services, markets, customers, and unique challenges.
From the perspective of a communications consultant, those are the best assignments, in terms of enjoying and gaining personal satisfaction from the work, and in terms of our ability to provide helpful counsel.
Regardless of the product or service a client company sells, the ability to appreciate the circumstances in which that company operates brings with it valuable insights into the struggles and challenges, risks, victories and mistakes that comprise the daily experience of employees. Our communications counsel is far more insightful and meaningful when we know that experience intimately as opposed to those cases where we do not have that advantage.
Kept at arms' length from the business and given little opportunity to immerse ourselves, the communications counsel provided is necessarily superficial. Most of the work in these cases tends to be rote, tactical and reactive. Further, there is little pleasure in the assignment. It's more of a struggle, where we’re not allowed to do our best work.
There’s often no way of knowing ahead of time into which category a new client will fall. But there might be some early tip-offs. When the new client talks about the need to “catch a speeding train,” employs a similar metaphor, or says there’s no time “for the luxury” of immersing ourselves in the business, it’s likely it will be a tactically intensive assignment with little chance to connect personally, or provide insightful strategic counsel.
Conversely, the client open to the notion of allowing the consultant a full engagement in the business, to talk with employees prior to commencing the assignment is going to get full value for the investment because the outside consultant will gain important awareness and understanding of the employees’ environment, challenges and personal connection to the business.
Most companies of any size employ full-time communications managers. Outside communications consultants are brought in not to replicate or supplement their work but rather to provide the outsider’s perspective that the insider cannot possibly have. That’s where the full value comes in: being able to understand fully the business’ vision, mission, strategy, challenges, markets, and customer demands, and then translate that into meaningful communications strategies and messages to keep employees engaged in the business.
In other words, the deeper, first-hand appreciation for the personal investments that each employee makes in the job is the key to engaging the employees in dialogue and discussion, and being better equipped to shape the right messages to assure that employees are getting the right information, insights and knowledge at the right time, through the right media for maximum effect.
And if that’s what the client is paying for, why erect barriers?
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
An Incomplete Journey?
Inspired by my brother’s comment and the subsequent email discussion among him, my father and other brother, I recently picked up and read John Steinbeck’s Travels with Charley, a book I’d postponed reading for many years.
This wandering-America genre of literature, at its heart, is the author's own self-exploration. Steinbeck's introspection is remarkably honest, often hilarious and other times sad. He writes of his quest to determine what exactly it means to be an American – almost at an arm's length, as though he's excluding himself from consideration – and ultimately decides he can't quite pin it down.
It’s a studied glimpse of America in 1960. And he didn't balk at exploring the underside, too. He purposefully went to New Orleans to witness the ugliness of racism, where white housewives loudly taunted a little black girl attending a newly segregated school. He indulged in analysis of the meaning of racism in the American South, wondering where it would lead and how or if it would end.
Colin Fletcher's The Thousand-Mile Summer (which I wrote about here last September in "The Concertina of Life") qualifies for this genre. It, too, is a retelling of a similar journey of self-discovery, a trip with a pre-determined beginning and end.
One trait these books share is their rush to finish. The end of Steinbeck's trip was the same as Fletcher's – hurried and harried. Steinbeck drove a counter-clockwise route in a camper with his dog Charley, a very intelligent standard poodle, going from New York through New England and then west through Minnesota, North Dakota and Montana to Seattle, returning by way of California, Texas and the South.
By the time he reached the western tip of Virginia, he fairly raced home, stopping only for gas and catnaps. He admitted that his interest in the passing landscape was non-existent, that he didn't really see anything. Fletcher, too, admitted that the last three weeks of his hike, which mileage-wise amounted to nearly a third of his total trip, were "dull." The telling of the final miles, in both, takes up far fewer pages than did the equivalent number of miles earlier in the books.
The initial purpose of their trips – to explore and delve into their subjects – fades into tedious recitation as they approach their final destinations, perhaps a reflection of human nature, our innate desire to complete the tasks we assign ourselves.
Steinbeck started his trip in New York and headed north into New England where he dug into the territory and the people. It was far closer to his home than Virginia, yet he didn't spend as much time or analysis there as he had in nearby Maine. The freshness of the idea of exploring got stale. Maybe it’s simply a longing to return home.
We set goals for ourselves, inject purpose into what we do. Often, in the heat of the moment, in the reality of the act, we lose track and just want to be done with it. I think by the time he extricated himself from the ugly racism of the South, enduring what he referred to as “weary nausea,” Steinbeck had tired of the journey and the subject matter. It had lost its magic pull and became a push to get back home in New York. He wrote:
It is very strange. Up to Abingdon, Virginia, I can reel back the trip like a film. I have almost total recall, every face is there, every hill and tree and color, and sound of speech and small scene ready to replay themselves in my memory. After Abingdon – nothing. The way was a gray, timeless, eventless tunnel, but at the end of it was the one shining reality – my own wife, my own house in my own street, my own bed. It was all there, and I lumbered my way toward it.
It is the rare human able to treat the journey’s end (or the task, for that matter) as intently as he/she does the beginning. Is it typical of the genre, of the human race? I want to undertake a more detailed analysis to include others: Blue Highways by William Least Heat-Moon, On the Road by Jack Kerouac (both of which I read years ago), and Bill Bryson's The Lost Continent (which I haven’t yet read). I’ll let you know what I learn.
This wandering-America genre of literature, at its heart, is the author's own self-exploration. Steinbeck's introspection is remarkably honest, often hilarious and other times sad. He writes of his quest to determine what exactly it means to be an American – almost at an arm's length, as though he's excluding himself from consideration – and ultimately decides he can't quite pin it down.
It’s a studied glimpse of America in 1960. And he didn't balk at exploring the underside, too. He purposefully went to New Orleans to witness the ugliness of racism, where white housewives loudly taunted a little black girl attending a newly segregated school. He indulged in analysis of the meaning of racism in the American South, wondering where it would lead and how or if it would end.
Colin Fletcher's The Thousand-Mile Summer (which I wrote about here last September in "The Concertina of Life") qualifies for this genre. It, too, is a retelling of a similar journey of self-discovery, a trip with a pre-determined beginning and end.
One trait these books share is their rush to finish. The end of Steinbeck's trip was the same as Fletcher's – hurried and harried. Steinbeck drove a counter-clockwise route in a camper with his dog Charley, a very intelligent standard poodle, going from New York through New England and then west through Minnesota, North Dakota and Montana to Seattle, returning by way of California, Texas and the South.
By the time he reached the western tip of Virginia, he fairly raced home, stopping only for gas and catnaps. He admitted that his interest in the passing landscape was non-existent, that he didn't really see anything. Fletcher, too, admitted that the last three weeks of his hike, which mileage-wise amounted to nearly a third of his total trip, were "dull." The telling of the final miles, in both, takes up far fewer pages than did the equivalent number of miles earlier in the books.
The initial purpose of their trips – to explore and delve into their subjects – fades into tedious recitation as they approach their final destinations, perhaps a reflection of human nature, our innate desire to complete the tasks we assign ourselves.
Steinbeck started his trip in New York and headed north into New England where he dug into the territory and the people. It was far closer to his home than Virginia, yet he didn't spend as much time or analysis there as he had in nearby Maine. The freshness of the idea of exploring got stale. Maybe it’s simply a longing to return home.
We set goals for ourselves, inject purpose into what we do. Often, in the heat of the moment, in the reality of the act, we lose track and just want to be done with it. I think by the time he extricated himself from the ugly racism of the South, enduring what he referred to as “weary nausea,” Steinbeck had tired of the journey and the subject matter. It had lost its magic pull and became a push to get back home in New York. He wrote:
It is very strange. Up to Abingdon, Virginia, I can reel back the trip like a film. I have almost total recall, every face is there, every hill and tree and color, and sound of speech and small scene ready to replay themselves in my memory. After Abingdon – nothing. The way was a gray, timeless, eventless tunnel, but at the end of it was the one shining reality – my own wife, my own house in my own street, my own bed. It was all there, and I lumbered my way toward it.
It is the rare human able to treat the journey’s end (or the task, for that matter) as intently as he/she does the beginning. Is it typical of the genre, of the human race? I want to undertake a more detailed analysis to include others: Blue Highways by William Least Heat-Moon, On the Road by Jack Kerouac (both of which I read years ago), and Bill Bryson's The Lost Continent (which I haven’t yet read). I’ll let you know what I learn.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
A Missed Opportunity
Given the chance to boost employee morale, to reinforce the kind of messages that help build a cohesive organization, what kind of company would pass it up?
It's hard to imagine that any organization – especially in these trying times – wouldn’t want to maximize every opportunity to lift people's spirits and make them feel a part of something larger than themselves.
So it struck me as absolutely tone-deaf and (dare I say?) stupid when I actually observed a company that missed the opportunity – big time.
Escorted into the lobby of the headquarters of a multi-national corporation, a potential client, I was heartened and pleasantly surprised to see a wall of black and white photos of people: office workers, blue-collar workers and executives in various poses related to the work they do.
I recognized the CEO and commented aloud to my companion – the prospective client liaison – what a great idea it is to post all those employee photos. It reinforced the sense of community that helps define a corporation and its mission. I imagined myself an employee coming into work every morning, feeling a sense of pride at seeing the photo of myself alongside my fellow workers. "What a terrific idea," I said aloud.
So imagine my shock and surprise when she said that all but the handful of executives were in fact models, not real employees of the company.
Whoa. Check please.
Talk about a missed opportunity. Talk about a self-inflicted fatal wound.
Not only would a wall of employee photos be a real morale booster and enhance people's connectedness to the organization, but the company's failure to do so – and in such a blatant fashion – had the complete opposite effect. Were I an employee there, the knowledge and daily reminder of seeing a wall of photos of models pretending to be real employees would be a daily slap in the face. It would tell me that employees are replaceable by anonymous models and therefore not essential to the organization or its mission.
What possibly could have been the motivation? Cost saving? Was it really cheaper to hire dozens of models and take professional photos? Not likely.
In the delicate dance with a prospective client, I handled the topic carefully. Fortunately, she agreed with me and, in fact, felt herself insulted just as I would have had I worked there.
The experience revealed volumes about this organization and the people who ran it. But it also spoke to the broader issue of engaging employees in the organization and its mission.
As I wrote in the previous entry here, businesses are at their heart communities of humans. Anything that enhances that community, that builds people’s sense of connection to the greater whole, is going to redound to the benefit of the corporation.
Connecting employees to the corporation can take many forms, and the more methods employed, the better. Frequent face-to-face meetings, executive visibility and availability, communications in numerous venues and such all add up to a better-informed and better-connected employee population, employees who are engaged in the long- and short-term goals of the organization.
Envision a company that does all that and how well a wall of employee photos would be received, and how natural the addition of such photos would be.
Now, imagine the opposite. Without revealing the name of the company, I can assure you that it is now in dire financial straits – five years after my having seen those photos in the lobby. In my own mind, I see a direct connection between its current situation and that wall of photos. Sadly, it was a missed opportunity.
It's hard to imagine that any organization – especially in these trying times – wouldn’t want to maximize every opportunity to lift people's spirits and make them feel a part of something larger than themselves.
So it struck me as absolutely tone-deaf and (dare I say?) stupid when I actually observed a company that missed the opportunity – big time.
Escorted into the lobby of the headquarters of a multi-national corporation, a potential client, I was heartened and pleasantly surprised to see a wall of black and white photos of people: office workers, blue-collar workers and executives in various poses related to the work they do.
I recognized the CEO and commented aloud to my companion – the prospective client liaison – what a great idea it is to post all those employee photos. It reinforced the sense of community that helps define a corporation and its mission. I imagined myself an employee coming into work every morning, feeling a sense of pride at seeing the photo of myself alongside my fellow workers. "What a terrific idea," I said aloud.
So imagine my shock and surprise when she said that all but the handful of executives were in fact models, not real employees of the company.
Whoa. Check please.
Talk about a missed opportunity. Talk about a self-inflicted fatal wound.
Not only would a wall of employee photos be a real morale booster and enhance people's connectedness to the organization, but the company's failure to do so – and in such a blatant fashion – had the complete opposite effect. Were I an employee there, the knowledge and daily reminder of seeing a wall of photos of models pretending to be real employees would be a daily slap in the face. It would tell me that employees are replaceable by anonymous models and therefore not essential to the organization or its mission.
What possibly could have been the motivation? Cost saving? Was it really cheaper to hire dozens of models and take professional photos? Not likely.
In the delicate dance with a prospective client, I handled the topic carefully. Fortunately, she agreed with me and, in fact, felt herself insulted just as I would have had I worked there.
The experience revealed volumes about this organization and the people who ran it. But it also spoke to the broader issue of engaging employees in the organization and its mission.
As I wrote in the previous entry here, businesses are at their heart communities of humans. Anything that enhances that community, that builds people’s sense of connection to the greater whole, is going to redound to the benefit of the corporation.
Connecting employees to the corporation can take many forms, and the more methods employed, the better. Frequent face-to-face meetings, executive visibility and availability, communications in numerous venues and such all add up to a better-informed and better-connected employee population, employees who are engaged in the long- and short-term goals of the organization.
Envision a company that does all that and how well a wall of employee photos would be received, and how natural the addition of such photos would be.
Now, imagine the opposite. Without revealing the name of the company, I can assure you that it is now in dire financial straits – five years after my having seen those photos in the lobby. In my own mind, I see a direct connection between its current situation and that wall of photos. Sadly, it was a missed opportunity.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
A Community of Humans
“Companies die because their managers focus on the economic activity of producing goods and services, and they forget that their organizations’ true nature is that of a community of humans.”
A client shared that quote with me a few years ago. I think it’s one of the best summations of the importance of consistent, timely and relevant employee communications, of using communications to build trust and strong, lasting relationships within an organization.
The quote was attributed to Arie de Geus, former head of Global Planning for Royal Dutch Shell, now a fellow at London School of Economics and MIT.
I got to thinking about those words and the sentiment they express the other day when I learned that The Rocky Mountain News was shutting down. To learn more about it, I visited its web site, which features a 20-minute video that, at its heart, I sensed, reinforces Mr. de Geus’ words.
The newspaper closed less than two months shy of the 150th anniversary of its founding. That’s a lot of history for any organization. In fact, the founding of the paper predates Colorado statehood by about 17 years. You can imagine the kinds of news it covered over the years – the settling of the Wild West and everything since.
The staff knew the end was near because The News’ owner, Scripps-Howard, announced in January that it was seeking a buyer and that, if none stepped forward within a month, it would close the operation.
The newspaper business in general has been struggling for some time now, having lost advertising revenue and readers to the Internet. But combining that fact with a dour economic climate, The News’ fate was sealed. The interim period gave the people the opportunity to prepare the paper’s obituary, so to speak, including this well-produced video and a 52-page history inserted into the final edition last Friday.
But it was the video that spoke to me and evoked de Gaus' words. Staff reporters and editors are interviewed and you sense the tears about to flow. It is a very sad wake, as though they had lost a parent too soon. It may even have been more profound than that.
These people lost not only a job, but they lost a mission they shared with dozens of other people within an amorphous entity called The Rocky Mountain News with which they all identified deeply, an entity they helped shape and define every day.
These are tough times for a lot of businesses. Hundreds of thousands of people are losing their jobs. That video makes the effect obvious. Watch it and you’ll get a deeper understanding of what a lost job really means.
We commit the majority of our waking hours throughout our adult lives to our careers and jobs. We sustain a significant sense of self-worth and value from what we are able to achieve – each in our own way – on the job. Take that away from us and what are we left with?
This is the core question that people are asking themselves as they contemplate the potential loss of their own jobs. Sure, the lost paycheck is the big immediate concern. How will we pay the mortgage? How will we pay the bills? What about our family? Will we be able to find a new job in this lousy economy?
But the deeper pain and self-doubt arises from the disconnection from that “community of humans” that was the organization we worked for, that community from which we derived so much sense of satisfaction and our connection to the larger world, that organization we helped shape and define.
Managers and company leadership must think about this component of people’s jobs as they contemplate cut backs, lay-offs and the like, rather than seeing people as numbers on a spreadsheet. They must continually engage their people to build trust and understanding – especially in difficult times – as they contemplate the extreme measures to take to accommodate slumping revenues and profits. They must convey an honest empathy with their people, and a sincere faith in the value and contributions those people bring to the greater whole that the company represents.
That’s what Arie de Gaus’ words are all about. Managers must focus their thinking on the reality of their organization as a community of humans first and foremost. If they do, if they have always done that, chances are that the fruitful and profitable economic activity of producing goods and services will follow.
Who knows? Perhaps the bite of a bad economy will have less effect on such a community of humans, and enable the organization to weather the storm and live to see better days.
A client shared that quote with me a few years ago. I think it’s one of the best summations of the importance of consistent, timely and relevant employee communications, of using communications to build trust and strong, lasting relationships within an organization.
The quote was attributed to Arie de Geus, former head of Global Planning for Royal Dutch Shell, now a fellow at London School of Economics and MIT.
I got to thinking about those words and the sentiment they express the other day when I learned that The Rocky Mountain News was shutting down. To learn more about it, I visited its web site, which features a 20-minute video that, at its heart, I sensed, reinforces Mr. de Geus’ words.
The newspaper closed less than two months shy of the 150th anniversary of its founding. That’s a lot of history for any organization. In fact, the founding of the paper predates Colorado statehood by about 17 years. You can imagine the kinds of news it covered over the years – the settling of the Wild West and everything since.
The staff knew the end was near because The News’ owner, Scripps-Howard, announced in January that it was seeking a buyer and that, if none stepped forward within a month, it would close the operation.
The newspaper business in general has been struggling for some time now, having lost advertising revenue and readers to the Internet. But combining that fact with a dour economic climate, The News’ fate was sealed. The interim period gave the people the opportunity to prepare the paper’s obituary, so to speak, including this well-produced video and a 52-page history inserted into the final edition last Friday.
But it was the video that spoke to me and evoked de Gaus' words. Staff reporters and editors are interviewed and you sense the tears about to flow. It is a very sad wake, as though they had lost a parent too soon. It may even have been more profound than that.
These people lost not only a job, but they lost a mission they shared with dozens of other people within an amorphous entity called The Rocky Mountain News with which they all identified deeply, an entity they helped shape and define every day.
These are tough times for a lot of businesses. Hundreds of thousands of people are losing their jobs. That video makes the effect obvious. Watch it and you’ll get a deeper understanding of what a lost job really means.
We commit the majority of our waking hours throughout our adult lives to our careers and jobs. We sustain a significant sense of self-worth and value from what we are able to achieve – each in our own way – on the job. Take that away from us and what are we left with?
This is the core question that people are asking themselves as they contemplate the potential loss of their own jobs. Sure, the lost paycheck is the big immediate concern. How will we pay the mortgage? How will we pay the bills? What about our family? Will we be able to find a new job in this lousy economy?
But the deeper pain and self-doubt arises from the disconnection from that “community of humans” that was the organization we worked for, that community from which we derived so much sense of satisfaction and our connection to the larger world, that organization we helped shape and define.
Managers and company leadership must think about this component of people’s jobs as they contemplate cut backs, lay-offs and the like, rather than seeing people as numbers on a spreadsheet. They must continually engage their people to build trust and understanding – especially in difficult times – as they contemplate the extreme measures to take to accommodate slumping revenues and profits. They must convey an honest empathy with their people, and a sincere faith in the value and contributions those people bring to the greater whole that the company represents.
That’s what Arie de Gaus’ words are all about. Managers must focus their thinking on the reality of their organization as a community of humans first and foremost. If they do, if they have always done that, chances are that the fruitful and profitable economic activity of producing goods and services will follow.
Who knows? Perhaps the bite of a bad economy will have less effect on such a community of humans, and enable the organization to weather the storm and live to see better days.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
In the wake of the deal
We learned this week that Oracle is on a buying spree, taking advantage of the weak economy to pick up a few bargains. It’s sort of like what we’d do in terms of upgrading our housing situation right now – if only we had the cash on hand to do it.
Oracle does have a lot of cash on hand - $7.4 billion, to be precise. So CEO Larry Ellison has gone shopping, beefing up his company’s product and service offering by buying 10 different companies in the past 12 months.
While safeguarding its future bottom line with a broader selection of offerings, the company’s near-term challenges are happening below Ellison’s radar screen: the actual integration of these often disparate companies and cultures into the behemoth that Oracle has become. A telling comment by one employee, quoted in the Wall Street Journal (2/17/09), points out the nub of this problem.
“Some former employees … say the acquisitions spawned confusion in-house as people got thrown together on new projects. ‘My manager would put me on projects that are totally irrelevant for my skill set,’ said one former consultant who joined Oracle when it bought PeopleSoft Inc. in 2004. The changes became so frequent, he says, he eventually stopped trying to remember the names of groups he was assigned to.”
Merging one company into another is a big mountain to climb, all the more difficult when the acquired company is large, with a lot of employees in a variety of operations, located in numerous places around the world.
The big numbers guys – people like Larry Ellison and his peers – can seal the deal and head off looking for the next bargain. In their wake are a lot of people who have to make the latest deal work, sewing together the mismatched seams that occur at many points of contact.
For instance, noses get out of joint when people in the acquired company lose the cherished titles they had earned in their formerly independent firm. Maybe a “senior vice president” at XYZ Software is now a “director” in his new company, one of hundreds with that title. Sure, his salary and benefits stayed the same, but he lost his corner office and the perks and respect that went with being an SVP. Ruffled feathers like that need to be smoothed, lest the birds fly away.
At its heart, the integration is all about hundreds of important tasks like that – the dotting of i’s and crossing of t’s – that consume thousands of man-hours in weaving together two organizations to assure that the original intent of the acquisition is realized.
Integrations aren’t completed when the deal closes. That’s just the starting point. And typically, as much as one, two or even three years later, there can still be a lot of loose ends.
Individuals at some foreign operations might still be operating under “temporary” contracts and not officially part of their new company. I’ve seen cases where local labor laws prevent the new company from even issuing new business cards until all the laws have been satisfied to enable these people to become official employees of the acquiring company.
The HR people, meanwhile, tear their hair out over these complications, trying to sort out the nuances and keep everyone happy and productive.
The IT operation is another matter. Among other tasks, they have to align two networks to assure that people on both sides of the integration can readily communicate. Even in a company like Oracle, it likely takes months before employees in the acquired firms have full access to internal web sites, Shareware and assorted applications.
And business can’t stand still while these details around payroll, benefits and IT access are sorted out. People on both sides of the integration are expected to be working together from Day 1, creating, selling and servicing products, and keeping customers happy.
In all this, communication plays an important though limited role. The temptation is to fly at the 20,000-foot level, looking for the common cultural links that help one group better understand and merge with the other. We can develop narratives that distill the essence of the acquisition strategy that brought them together, and use that to help shape internal messages and reinforce the core themes. That’s an important part of the process.
But at the end of the day, the most valuable communications are those that establish broad internal awareness and understanding of the challenges everyone is facing, while providing timelines to give people a sense that there is light at the end of the tunnel; communications that anticipate and answer people’s burning questions, the open issues that keep them awake at night. That’s what matters most.
Oracle does have a lot of cash on hand - $7.4 billion, to be precise. So CEO Larry Ellison has gone shopping, beefing up his company’s product and service offering by buying 10 different companies in the past 12 months.
While safeguarding its future bottom line with a broader selection of offerings, the company’s near-term challenges are happening below Ellison’s radar screen: the actual integration of these often disparate companies and cultures into the behemoth that Oracle has become. A telling comment by one employee, quoted in the Wall Street Journal (2/17/09), points out the nub of this problem.
“Some former employees … say the acquisitions spawned confusion in-house as people got thrown together on new projects. ‘My manager would put me on projects that are totally irrelevant for my skill set,’ said one former consultant who joined Oracle when it bought PeopleSoft Inc. in 2004. The changes became so frequent, he says, he eventually stopped trying to remember the names of groups he was assigned to.”
Merging one company into another is a big mountain to climb, all the more difficult when the acquired company is large, with a lot of employees in a variety of operations, located in numerous places around the world.
The big numbers guys – people like Larry Ellison and his peers – can seal the deal and head off looking for the next bargain. In their wake are a lot of people who have to make the latest deal work, sewing together the mismatched seams that occur at many points of contact.
For instance, noses get out of joint when people in the acquired company lose the cherished titles they had earned in their formerly independent firm. Maybe a “senior vice president” at XYZ Software is now a “director” in his new company, one of hundreds with that title. Sure, his salary and benefits stayed the same, but he lost his corner office and the perks and respect that went with being an SVP. Ruffled feathers like that need to be smoothed, lest the birds fly away.
At its heart, the integration is all about hundreds of important tasks like that – the dotting of i’s and crossing of t’s – that consume thousands of man-hours in weaving together two organizations to assure that the original intent of the acquisition is realized.
Integrations aren’t completed when the deal closes. That’s just the starting point. And typically, as much as one, two or even three years later, there can still be a lot of loose ends.
Individuals at some foreign operations might still be operating under “temporary” contracts and not officially part of their new company. I’ve seen cases where local labor laws prevent the new company from even issuing new business cards until all the laws have been satisfied to enable these people to become official employees of the acquiring company.
The HR people, meanwhile, tear their hair out over these complications, trying to sort out the nuances and keep everyone happy and productive.
The IT operation is another matter. Among other tasks, they have to align two networks to assure that people on both sides of the integration can readily communicate. Even in a company like Oracle, it likely takes months before employees in the acquired firms have full access to internal web sites, Shareware and assorted applications.
And business can’t stand still while these details around payroll, benefits and IT access are sorted out. People on both sides of the integration are expected to be working together from Day 1, creating, selling and servicing products, and keeping customers happy.
In all this, communication plays an important though limited role. The temptation is to fly at the 20,000-foot level, looking for the common cultural links that help one group better understand and merge with the other. We can develop narratives that distill the essence of the acquisition strategy that brought them together, and use that to help shape internal messages and reinforce the core themes. That’s an important part of the process.
But at the end of the day, the most valuable communications are those that establish broad internal awareness and understanding of the challenges everyone is facing, while providing timelines to give people a sense that there is light at the end of the tunnel; communications that anticipate and answer people’s burning questions, the open issues that keep them awake at night. That’s what matters most.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Weathering the Tough Economy
Few businesspeople today have ever faced such a dreadful economy, nor the multitude of challenges it has wrought. This is new territory for almost everyone. How well people operate going forward will determine the speed at which we, both individually and collectively, pull out of this economic malaise.
Though I do firmly believe that “this too shall pass” and we will eventually see an expanding economy, with job growth, I am no economist and certainly have no crystal ball to foresee when that turn-around will come. But I can opine on internal business environments and how leaders, managers and their employees should be operating together to serve the best interests of their companies.
Regardless of which way the economy goes in 2009, leaders' and managers’ uppermost focus must remain on the perpetuation and long-term success of the company – a goal that encompasses many aspects of running a business and countless decisions, big and small. But if business leaders and managers do only one thing right in these trying times, it has to be treating their employees with respect.
Many companies have had to impose layoffs in recent months. Likely there are more to come. Even if they haven’t laid anyone off yet, virtually every company, even those with strong balance sheets, is considering or has enacted pre-emptive budget cuts, including wage and hiring freezes. The result? Nervous and insecure employees everywhere.
Needless to say, nervous and insecure employees are not always doing their best work – which is the last thing a stressed organization needs. Businesses need their people to be at their best to collectively surmount today’s complex challenges, and can’t afford disaffected or disconnected employees.
It is incumbent, then, on managers and leaders to take some simple actions to counteract the unavoidable negative climate of fear that can set in and afflict even the best businesses under the cloud of budget cuts or a recent or potential layoff.
Downsizing and economic uncertainty is a time for dialogue based on facts and the realities of the marketplace. It’s a time for listening and responding, and for alignment. Words alone will not calm people's insecurities. But the right behaviors and actions will. One valuable behavior is encouraging dialogue. Set up a system to invite feedback. Don't let anything fester. Keep the dialogue open. Listen.
Re-engage the workforce in the business at hand. Restate business goals and the strategies that will get you there. Remind them in succinct terms why you're in business. Bring the outside world in to re-emphasize the climate of uncertainty you’re operating under, including the challenges your customers, suppliers and competitors are facing. Acknowledge people's frustrations and insecurities but, at the same time, remind them that this is the world we’re all operating in today. The only thing they can control is what they do every day. Re-iterate what is important – the business goals – and make sure that they see their connection to and role in fulfilling those goals.
Employees, too, have a significant role to play in this dynamic. In addition to their willingness and desire to put in the extra effort, they should be open to new ideas and new ways of doing things. The need for honesty is also critical, alerting supervisors and managers to new opportunities and unanticipated problems - along with proposed solutions. Employees should also remain curious about the world outside their company, especially their customers but also the global economic climate and the many facets of the world that have direct and indirect impacts on how their company operates.
Leadership should keep managers in the loop so there is a common understanding of the marketplace realities that led to the action (e.g., layoffs and/or budget cuts), the company's business strategy going forward, and the responsibilities of the employees to drive toward those goals. Prepare backgrounder documents for the managers to assure that employees across the organization are hearing a consistent message, and that managers are prepared to answer the inevitable tough questions.
There's an unspoken truth when people are laid off: their work still must get done. But where is that work going? How is that particular operation, function or department going to make up for the lost manpower and productivity? Who is going to take on that burden? What work or project needs to be stopped or reassigned? These are often the first and most difficult questions on everyone's mind after the dust of downsizing settles. Be prepared with realistic, workable answers.
In their January 12 Business Week column, Jack and Suzy Welch offered what I would consider another valuable piece of advice:
“…resist the impulse to make 2009 a year devoid of celebration. When times get tough, leaders often assume it’s unseemly to stop now and again and, well, have some fun. But this year – because of its severe challenges – is sure to be filled with remarkable small victories and heroic efforts. What a lost opportunity to build morale it would be, then, not to recognize and reward the people who are over-delivering. More than ever, they need and deserve it.”
If we learn anything from these frightful, uncertain times, let’s hope it’s the central importance of showing respect for employees by communicating with them frequently, openly and honestly.
Though I do firmly believe that “this too shall pass” and we will eventually see an expanding economy, with job growth, I am no economist and certainly have no crystal ball to foresee when that turn-around will come. But I can opine on internal business environments and how leaders, managers and their employees should be operating together to serve the best interests of their companies.
Regardless of which way the economy goes in 2009, leaders' and managers’ uppermost focus must remain on the perpetuation and long-term success of the company – a goal that encompasses many aspects of running a business and countless decisions, big and small. But if business leaders and managers do only one thing right in these trying times, it has to be treating their employees with respect.
Many companies have had to impose layoffs in recent months. Likely there are more to come. Even if they haven’t laid anyone off yet, virtually every company, even those with strong balance sheets, is considering or has enacted pre-emptive budget cuts, including wage and hiring freezes. The result? Nervous and insecure employees everywhere.
Needless to say, nervous and insecure employees are not always doing their best work – which is the last thing a stressed organization needs. Businesses need their people to be at their best to collectively surmount today’s complex challenges, and can’t afford disaffected or disconnected employees.
It is incumbent, then, on managers and leaders to take some simple actions to counteract the unavoidable negative climate of fear that can set in and afflict even the best businesses under the cloud of budget cuts or a recent or potential layoff.
Downsizing and economic uncertainty is a time for dialogue based on facts and the realities of the marketplace. It’s a time for listening and responding, and for alignment. Words alone will not calm people's insecurities. But the right behaviors and actions will. One valuable behavior is encouraging dialogue. Set up a system to invite feedback. Don't let anything fester. Keep the dialogue open. Listen.
Re-engage the workforce in the business at hand. Restate business goals and the strategies that will get you there. Remind them in succinct terms why you're in business. Bring the outside world in to re-emphasize the climate of uncertainty you’re operating under, including the challenges your customers, suppliers and competitors are facing. Acknowledge people's frustrations and insecurities but, at the same time, remind them that this is the world we’re all operating in today. The only thing they can control is what they do every day. Re-iterate what is important – the business goals – and make sure that they see their connection to and role in fulfilling those goals.
Employees, too, have a significant role to play in this dynamic. In addition to their willingness and desire to put in the extra effort, they should be open to new ideas and new ways of doing things. The need for honesty is also critical, alerting supervisors and managers to new opportunities and unanticipated problems - along with proposed solutions. Employees should also remain curious about the world outside their company, especially their customers but also the global economic climate and the many facets of the world that have direct and indirect impacts on how their company operates.
Leadership should keep managers in the loop so there is a common understanding of the marketplace realities that led to the action (e.g., layoffs and/or budget cuts), the company's business strategy going forward, and the responsibilities of the employees to drive toward those goals. Prepare backgrounder documents for the managers to assure that employees across the organization are hearing a consistent message, and that managers are prepared to answer the inevitable tough questions.
There's an unspoken truth when people are laid off: their work still must get done. But where is that work going? How is that particular operation, function or department going to make up for the lost manpower and productivity? Who is going to take on that burden? What work or project needs to be stopped or reassigned? These are often the first and most difficult questions on everyone's mind after the dust of downsizing settles. Be prepared with realistic, workable answers.
In their January 12 Business Week column, Jack and Suzy Welch offered what I would consider another valuable piece of advice:
“…resist the impulse to make 2009 a year devoid of celebration. When times get tough, leaders often assume it’s unseemly to stop now and again and, well, have some fun. But this year – because of its severe challenges – is sure to be filled with remarkable small victories and heroic efforts. What a lost opportunity to build morale it would be, then, not to recognize and reward the people who are over-delivering. More than ever, they need and deserve it.”
If we learn anything from these frightful, uncertain times, let’s hope it’s the central importance of showing respect for employees by communicating with them frequently, openly and honestly.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
The Value of Office Small Talk
It’s called “water-cooler talk,” or just shootin’ the breeze. It’s the non-productive chitchat that occurs in every office every day of the week, especially Monday. And it’s the bane of many productivity-obsessed bosses. But is it communications? Is there any value in it? Should it be discouraged?
Like anything, too much is too much. Nothing of value happens in a business environment if people spend the bulk of their time talking about topics unrelated to the business at hand – the NFL playoffs, stock tips, a big family event, complaints about the weather, golf scores, vacation plans, and the like.
This kind of internal communication, if practiced in moderation, is indeed valuable.
Let’s face it, people comprise businesses. And these people have lives outside the office: families, celebrations, illnesses, hobbies, pet peeves, and passions unrelated to their 9-5 responsibilities.
Knowing a person’s interests outside the office often gives us clues about what makes them tick – how they operate, how they think, who they are, what they’re truly good at. Having such insights into and connections with the people we work with regularly, or even occasionally, can be valuable in the long run.
For instance, common interests can create strong foundations for establishing and sustaining important working relationships. It’s the proverbial icebreaker that gives us entry to tackling difficult and challenging work-related subjects day-in and day-out.
The ability to open a Monday morning business meeting with a brief rehash of a Sunday afternoon football game eases us into a discussion of how to address a vexing customer relations issue or a challenging technical glitch. Or it enables a manager to soften the blow of some bad news. Maybe it serves as an appropriate metaphor for or segue to the topic at hand.
Small talk can also help us connect with people at remote locations. It can be fun working with people in other locations when your respective favorite professional football, baseball or basketball teams play each other. You can speculate ahead of the big game, needle one another, gloat a little if your team wins, or make lame excuses if your team loses.
We’ve all had to work with people about whom we know nothing; people who think the personal side of our lives is an inappropriate topic for office discussions; people who dive straight into the topic at hand every time, with no preamble discussion beyond a perfunctory “good morning.” Think about your working relationships with those kinds of people. Would the word “sterile” describe it? Did you feel you could trust them? Did you enjoy working with them? I dare say the answer to these questions is “no.”
Consider the opposite. Suppose you work for or with someone who opens conversations by asking how your son is doing in his first year away at college, or about your wife’s job with a company that isn’t doing well, or inquiring about the health of your ailing mother. You’re going to have a different kind of relationship with that kind of boss than the former.
This person operates on an entirely different plane. Instead of a terse “let’s get down to business,” by acknowledging the personal issues that may be distracting you at the moment, your colleague indicates a personal stake in your life and an awareness that you may not be on top of your game that day. Showing that we are concerned about each other’s welfare and personal challenges is a sign of respect for the person as a whole being.
There’s still another side to office chitchat, with perhaps a business benefit. Suppose a water cooler discussion one day reveals the fact that a co-worker lives next door to someone you know as a valuable contact in your particular field. Maybe your water cooler friend is in R&D and you’re in sales. As a tech guy, maybe he didn’t think of his neighbor as a potential customer. But you know the name and so you ask your office buddy for an introduction, or perhaps you finagle an invitation to a neighborhood Christmas party where you hope to meet this neighbor. There's nothing wrong with that, especially if it leads to new business.
Similarly, maybe someone’s outside hobby has some bearing on the business that they hadn’t thought of. Or maybe a realization that a new hire’s single-digit golf handicap indicates the kind of dedication and perseverance you’re looking for as a new member to your team.
The point is, we are all people for whom the work-a-day routine is but one facet of our lives. To recognize that is good. It is a sign of respect for our colleagues as individuals, acknowledging their unique selves that they bring to the job every day.
Like anything, too much is too much. Nothing of value happens in a business environment if people spend the bulk of their time talking about topics unrelated to the business at hand – the NFL playoffs, stock tips, a big family event, complaints about the weather, golf scores, vacation plans, and the like.
This kind of internal communication, if practiced in moderation, is indeed valuable.
Let’s face it, people comprise businesses. And these people have lives outside the office: families, celebrations, illnesses, hobbies, pet peeves, and passions unrelated to their 9-5 responsibilities.
Knowing a person’s interests outside the office often gives us clues about what makes them tick – how they operate, how they think, who they are, what they’re truly good at. Having such insights into and connections with the people we work with regularly, or even occasionally, can be valuable in the long run.
For instance, common interests can create strong foundations for establishing and sustaining important working relationships. It’s the proverbial icebreaker that gives us entry to tackling difficult and challenging work-related subjects day-in and day-out.
The ability to open a Monday morning business meeting with a brief rehash of a Sunday afternoon football game eases us into a discussion of how to address a vexing customer relations issue or a challenging technical glitch. Or it enables a manager to soften the blow of some bad news. Maybe it serves as an appropriate metaphor for or segue to the topic at hand.
Small talk can also help us connect with people at remote locations. It can be fun working with people in other locations when your respective favorite professional football, baseball or basketball teams play each other. You can speculate ahead of the big game, needle one another, gloat a little if your team wins, or make lame excuses if your team loses.
We’ve all had to work with people about whom we know nothing; people who think the personal side of our lives is an inappropriate topic for office discussions; people who dive straight into the topic at hand every time, with no preamble discussion beyond a perfunctory “good morning.” Think about your working relationships with those kinds of people. Would the word “sterile” describe it? Did you feel you could trust them? Did you enjoy working with them? I dare say the answer to these questions is “no.”
Consider the opposite. Suppose you work for or with someone who opens conversations by asking how your son is doing in his first year away at college, or about your wife’s job with a company that isn’t doing well, or inquiring about the health of your ailing mother. You’re going to have a different kind of relationship with that kind of boss than the former.
This person operates on an entirely different plane. Instead of a terse “let’s get down to business,” by acknowledging the personal issues that may be distracting you at the moment, your colleague indicates a personal stake in your life and an awareness that you may not be on top of your game that day. Showing that we are concerned about each other’s welfare and personal challenges is a sign of respect for the person as a whole being.
There’s still another side to office chitchat, with perhaps a business benefit. Suppose a water cooler discussion one day reveals the fact that a co-worker lives next door to someone you know as a valuable contact in your particular field. Maybe your water cooler friend is in R&D and you’re in sales. As a tech guy, maybe he didn’t think of his neighbor as a potential customer. But you know the name and so you ask your office buddy for an introduction, or perhaps you finagle an invitation to a neighborhood Christmas party where you hope to meet this neighbor. There's nothing wrong with that, especially if it leads to new business.
Similarly, maybe someone’s outside hobby has some bearing on the business that they hadn’t thought of. Or maybe a realization that a new hire’s single-digit golf handicap indicates the kind of dedication and perseverance you’re looking for as a new member to your team.
The point is, we are all people for whom the work-a-day routine is but one facet of our lives. To recognize that is good. It is a sign of respect for our colleagues as individuals, acknowledging their unique selves that they bring to the job every day.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Just say "Thank You"
Our mothers taught us always to use the magic words – “please” and “thank you.” They often couched the suggestion with various aphorisms like, “you attract more bees with honey than with vinegar.”
Tired and trite as such counsel may seem, the core truth is timeless and unchanged. Such behavior is important, even in business. A manager’s “please” and “thank you” carry much more meaning to employees than they do coming from a peer. That’s because people appreciate recognition, especially when it comes from those who may have the capacity to shape their future.
In the course of interviewing employees in a client organization a few years ago, we heard a story from people in the unionized manufacturing operation that underlines this point.
Late in the afternoon one day, a critical machine broke down, causing a shutdown of the entire production line. An early diagnosis determined it would keep the line down for at least 48 hours – maybe longer. The maintenance team, consisting of about a half-dozen men, stayed past quitting time and dove in. In fact, they worked through the night and, by mid-morning the next day, had the machine up and running again. The projected 48 hours of downtime was cut to a mere 15.
Sure, these union machinists were on the clock. And, of course, they collected a hefty overtime bonus for their hard work. The union contract would have allowed them to quit after their requisite eight hours and return the next day at their usual starting time. But, as a team, they decided to work through the night and get the production line back up and running.
A few days later, after these men punched in one morning, their supervisor greeted them with a boxful of warm donuts, a pot of fresh coffee, a “thank you” for each, and a big smile. He paid for the coffee and donuts out of his own pocket. The smile and “thank yous” were free.
Seems like a simple gesture and an obvious one.
When one of these guys told us the story, he got emotional and a little choked up at the recollection. In fact, when I retell the story, so do I.
We heard that story about five times from different people, only one of whom was actually a member of the original crew that worked through the night. The story was so compelling, everyone we talked to seemed familiar with it.
Now, here’s the amazing part of my story…
We later learned that the actual event had taken place more than three years before we heard about it.
Small effort? Yes. Big impact? You bet.
When businesspeople talk about “reward and recognition,” it usually is in terms of formal systems, where people’s performance is measured on the fiscal year and they earn credits toward a reward: a gift card or something from the company store. Maybe they get their name in the company newsletter.
That’s all well and good, and I don’t discourage that kind of activity. But if that is the only way people are recognized for their hard work, the result will be a closely aligned set of behaviors within the margins of those pre-set determinants of desirable conduct.
Go ahead and do that, if you wish, but don’t overlook the far more important and meaningful kinds of reward and recognition… the simple ones, like:
• A big smile
• A pat on the back
• A “Thank you for your hard work”
• Impromptu team meetings to tell them that they’re doing a heckuva good job
In short, do the kinds of things you yourself would want to hear from your manager. You’ll be amazed at how well your words are received. Who knows? Maybe they’ll talk about it for years to come.
Tired and trite as such counsel may seem, the core truth is timeless and unchanged. Such behavior is important, even in business. A manager’s “please” and “thank you” carry much more meaning to employees than they do coming from a peer. That’s because people appreciate recognition, especially when it comes from those who may have the capacity to shape their future.
In the course of interviewing employees in a client organization a few years ago, we heard a story from people in the unionized manufacturing operation that underlines this point.
Late in the afternoon one day, a critical machine broke down, causing a shutdown of the entire production line. An early diagnosis determined it would keep the line down for at least 48 hours – maybe longer. The maintenance team, consisting of about a half-dozen men, stayed past quitting time and dove in. In fact, they worked through the night and, by mid-morning the next day, had the machine up and running again. The projected 48 hours of downtime was cut to a mere 15.
Sure, these union machinists were on the clock. And, of course, they collected a hefty overtime bonus for their hard work. The union contract would have allowed them to quit after their requisite eight hours and return the next day at their usual starting time. But, as a team, they decided to work through the night and get the production line back up and running.
A few days later, after these men punched in one morning, their supervisor greeted them with a boxful of warm donuts, a pot of fresh coffee, a “thank you” for each, and a big smile. He paid for the coffee and donuts out of his own pocket. The smile and “thank yous” were free.
Seems like a simple gesture and an obvious one.
When one of these guys told us the story, he got emotional and a little choked up at the recollection. In fact, when I retell the story, so do I.
We heard that story about five times from different people, only one of whom was actually a member of the original crew that worked through the night. The story was so compelling, everyone we talked to seemed familiar with it.
Now, here’s the amazing part of my story…
We later learned that the actual event had taken place more than three years before we heard about it.
Small effort? Yes. Big impact? You bet.
When businesspeople talk about “reward and recognition,” it usually is in terms of formal systems, where people’s performance is measured on the fiscal year and they earn credits toward a reward: a gift card or something from the company store. Maybe they get their name in the company newsletter.
That’s all well and good, and I don’t discourage that kind of activity. But if that is the only way people are recognized for their hard work, the result will be a closely aligned set of behaviors within the margins of those pre-set determinants of desirable conduct.
Go ahead and do that, if you wish, but don’t overlook the far more important and meaningful kinds of reward and recognition… the simple ones, like:
• A big smile
• A pat on the back
• A “Thank you for your hard work”
• Impromptu team meetings to tell them that they’re doing a heckuva good job
In short, do the kinds of things you yourself would want to hear from your manager. You’ll be amazed at how well your words are received. Who knows? Maybe they’ll talk about it for years to come.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Communicate with your employees - Doctor’s orders
Business people are busy today – very busy. That has always been true, but more so now in the face of a distressed economy. Companies are struggling to maintain profitability, the components of which reside in every part of the organization – from maintaining good client/customer relations, to wringing maximum productivity and efficiency from production, to cutting expenses to the bone.
For the senior people, these pressures are compounded. They carry the weight of the company on their shoulders. You’re doing them a favor when you can relieve them of some of their burdens. So the suggestion that senior managers become better communicators is often met with incredulity and outright rejection.
Yet focusing a bit more on communicating with one’s employees can actually help bring some of the relief and support that is so critical in such trying times. A true story helps illustrate this.
A few years ago, a process industry company engaged us in an employee communications assignment. This company owned several large facilities around the world. The plant where my story takes place was quite large and consisted of multiple parallel processes, all doing pretty much the same thing round the clock. Like other such plants, a machine manager and his team of managers and supervisors run each component operation, covering the various facets of keeping that machine going.
The manager of one machine in this plant told me this story and I’ve never forgotten it.
He was in his mid-50s. One day, he went in for his annual check-up and his doctor told him that he needed to get more exercise, and suggested a long walk each day would be a good start.
This plant is built with the offices at one end, and an executive parking lot right outside. So this machine manager every day would walk about 50 or 100 feet between his car and his office. To follow his doctor’s orders, he decided instead to park his car at the opposite end of his plant, forcing himself to walk about a half-mile both morning and night. Aside from getting more exercise, he realized some unexpected but very important benefits.
He suddenly had a lot more daily interaction with the people working on his machine than ever before. Sometimes it was a simple wave or nod and a "good morning" or "good night." Other times, it was talking about the latest NFL football game or the coming hunting season.
The important thing is that he broke the ice. Over time, he also changed people’s perceptions of who he was and what he did. He became more human and more approachable in their eyes. And what happened eventually is that people increasingly felt comfortable coming to him on the floor with problems, ideas, insights and solutions. Though that hadn’t been his intention, he opened lines of communication that had never existed before, in turn building trust among the work force.
His machine was one of the older machines in the company, yet about a year after he began his daily walks through the plant, his operation’s performance rose markedly – so high in fact that it became the most productive and efficient operation in the company.
What happened? What role did communications play in making this production line suddenly so productive? I think you know the answer, or at least can guess.
As this manager told me, as his people came to feel more comfortable with him, they told him things about his equipment and operation that he hadn’t fully appreciated before. And when he engaged in a little give-and-take with these hands-on operators, they had ideas and insights that, as the guy in charge, he could and did act on.
Sitting in that remote office, buried in reports, emails and meetings, managers don’t get a lot of opportunity to get their hands dirty, so to speak, learning what makes their operations tick. So the lesson here is, create the opportunity. Get out and talk to people. Pretend your doctor told you do it. You may be surprised what you learn.
For the senior people, these pressures are compounded. They carry the weight of the company on their shoulders. You’re doing them a favor when you can relieve them of some of their burdens. So the suggestion that senior managers become better communicators is often met with incredulity and outright rejection.
Yet focusing a bit more on communicating with one’s employees can actually help bring some of the relief and support that is so critical in such trying times. A true story helps illustrate this.
A few years ago, a process industry company engaged us in an employee communications assignment. This company owned several large facilities around the world. The plant where my story takes place was quite large and consisted of multiple parallel processes, all doing pretty much the same thing round the clock. Like other such plants, a machine manager and his team of managers and supervisors run each component operation, covering the various facets of keeping that machine going.
The manager of one machine in this plant told me this story and I’ve never forgotten it.
He was in his mid-50s. One day, he went in for his annual check-up and his doctor told him that he needed to get more exercise, and suggested a long walk each day would be a good start.
This plant is built with the offices at one end, and an executive parking lot right outside. So this machine manager every day would walk about 50 or 100 feet between his car and his office. To follow his doctor’s orders, he decided instead to park his car at the opposite end of his plant, forcing himself to walk about a half-mile both morning and night. Aside from getting more exercise, he realized some unexpected but very important benefits.
He suddenly had a lot more daily interaction with the people working on his machine than ever before. Sometimes it was a simple wave or nod and a "good morning" or "good night." Other times, it was talking about the latest NFL football game or the coming hunting season.
The important thing is that he broke the ice. Over time, he also changed people’s perceptions of who he was and what he did. He became more human and more approachable in their eyes. And what happened eventually is that people increasingly felt comfortable coming to him on the floor with problems, ideas, insights and solutions. Though that hadn’t been his intention, he opened lines of communication that had never existed before, in turn building trust among the work force.
His machine was one of the older machines in the company, yet about a year after he began his daily walks through the plant, his operation’s performance rose markedly – so high in fact that it became the most productive and efficient operation in the company.
What happened? What role did communications play in making this production line suddenly so productive? I think you know the answer, or at least can guess.
As this manager told me, as his people came to feel more comfortable with him, they told him things about his equipment and operation that he hadn’t fully appreciated before. And when he engaged in a little give-and-take with these hands-on operators, they had ideas and insights that, as the guy in charge, he could and did act on.
Sitting in that remote office, buried in reports, emails and meetings, managers don’t get a lot of opportunity to get their hands dirty, so to speak, learning what makes their operations tick. So the lesson here is, create the opportunity. Get out and talk to people. Pretend your doctor told you do it. You may be surprised what you learn.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Reaching employees at the Super Bowl
When a marketer advertises during the Super Bowl, what kind of message is it sending to its internal audience, its employees?
This is an especially pertinent question in our current economic climate as businesses struggle with sinking revenues and profitability. Lay-offs at the larger companies – the kind that advertise during the Super Bowl – are becoming everyday news lately. And those that are not cutting staff are asking their employees to pinch pennies.
So when that same penny-pinching company spends millions of dollars on Super Bowl advertising – which this year will cost about $3 million for a 30-second spot – do employees resent it and see it as hypocritical, contrary to a climate of cost cutting? Perhaps. But there’s another angle to this. And while the decision to forego high profile advertising in the name of cost-savings may seem obvious, it really isn’t.
According to the Wall Street Journal (Nov. 11, 2008) this is a question that FedEx is wrestling with right now. The package-delivery giant has advertised in each of the past 12 Super Bowls and has reserved a slot for the 2009 game, as did a number of other advertisers. In fact, NBC’s inventory of ad spots was sold out in September – before the financial meltdown.
But FedEx has not confirmed its buy and, a spokesperson says, it is concerned that spending such an exorbitant amount of money when it’s “asking employees to do more with less” will not be received well. [Update: FedEx has decided not to advertise in the Super Bowl.]
I remember, years ago, a beautiful advertisement for Porsche in a number of glossy magazines. The ad featured a large double foldout with a schematic cut-away of the Porsche 911 and intricate airbrush graphics detailing all the unique engineering that makes a Porsche a Porsche.
At the time – when I was a neophyte in the marketing business – I doubted the very expensive advertisement sold many cars. But a wiser marketer explained it a different way. The ad wasn’t meant so much to sell new cars as it was to confirm to Porsche owners that they had made the right decision.
It gave owners a private little gloat, and made them proud of their decision – and their exceptional machine. It provided them more information about their cars than they had ever gotten, facts and details that underlined the thrill they experienced using the product.
In the same way, advertising a product or service in bad economic times may, on the surface, seem frivolous and wasteful, especially to the insiders who are having to deal with the effects of belt-tightening. And so a case can certainly be made for skipping the Super Bowl and putting those millions to better use inside the company and/or assuring continued customer support.
Yet, the opposite case can also be made. A high-profile Super Bowl ad, if done right, can send a message of strength, determination, conviction, and renewed faith in the firm’s future. It says “we’re in it for the long haul, come what may. We’re not going anywhere.”
That’s certainly an important message to the employees as they fight to keep the firm profitable and worry about their vulnerability in tough financial times. It can steel their resolve when they get a morale boost like that. Like the Porsche ad, it can seal the deal with the employees.
But make no mistake about it: it’s a delicate decision, one that needs to be thought out in the larger context of marketing goals and the company’s long-term strategic direction, just as does the tone of the advertisement. While the decision is often made by the chief marketing officer and his/her team, another voice ought to be heard in that process: the employee communications professionals.
Questions about the value of the highly visible advertisement in the context of the internal climate must be posed and considered in terms of, not only the ultimate decision of whether to advertise but how to advertise, the content, and the tone. The wise marketer will accommodate and honor that input. The company will be stronger for it, regardless of the ultimate decision.
This is an especially pertinent question in our current economic climate as businesses struggle with sinking revenues and profitability. Lay-offs at the larger companies – the kind that advertise during the Super Bowl – are becoming everyday news lately. And those that are not cutting staff are asking their employees to pinch pennies.
So when that same penny-pinching company spends millions of dollars on Super Bowl advertising – which this year will cost about $3 million for a 30-second spot – do employees resent it and see it as hypocritical, contrary to a climate of cost cutting? Perhaps. But there’s another angle to this. And while the decision to forego high profile advertising in the name of cost-savings may seem obvious, it really isn’t.
According to the Wall Street Journal (Nov. 11, 2008) this is a question that FedEx is wrestling with right now. The package-delivery giant has advertised in each of the past 12 Super Bowls and has reserved a slot for the 2009 game, as did a number of other advertisers. In fact, NBC’s inventory of ad spots was sold out in September – before the financial meltdown.
But FedEx has not confirmed its buy and, a spokesperson says, it is concerned that spending such an exorbitant amount of money when it’s “asking employees to do more with less” will not be received well. [Update: FedEx has decided not to advertise in the Super Bowl.]
I remember, years ago, a beautiful advertisement for Porsche in a number of glossy magazines. The ad featured a large double foldout with a schematic cut-away of the Porsche 911 and intricate airbrush graphics detailing all the unique engineering that makes a Porsche a Porsche.
At the time – when I was a neophyte in the marketing business – I doubted the very expensive advertisement sold many cars. But a wiser marketer explained it a different way. The ad wasn’t meant so much to sell new cars as it was to confirm to Porsche owners that they had made the right decision.
It gave owners a private little gloat, and made them proud of their decision – and their exceptional machine. It provided them more information about their cars than they had ever gotten, facts and details that underlined the thrill they experienced using the product.
In the same way, advertising a product or service in bad economic times may, on the surface, seem frivolous and wasteful, especially to the insiders who are having to deal with the effects of belt-tightening. And so a case can certainly be made for skipping the Super Bowl and putting those millions to better use inside the company and/or assuring continued customer support.
Yet, the opposite case can also be made. A high-profile Super Bowl ad, if done right, can send a message of strength, determination, conviction, and renewed faith in the firm’s future. It says “we’re in it for the long haul, come what may. We’re not going anywhere.”
That’s certainly an important message to the employees as they fight to keep the firm profitable and worry about their vulnerability in tough financial times. It can steel their resolve when they get a morale boost like that. Like the Porsche ad, it can seal the deal with the employees.
But make no mistake about it: it’s a delicate decision, one that needs to be thought out in the larger context of marketing goals and the company’s long-term strategic direction, just as does the tone of the advertisement. While the decision is often made by the chief marketing officer and his/her team, another voice ought to be heard in that process: the employee communications professionals.
Questions about the value of the highly visible advertisement in the context of the internal climate must be posed and considered in terms of, not only the ultimate decision of whether to advertise but how to advertise, the content, and the tone. The wise marketer will accommodate and honor that input. The company will be stronger for it, regardless of the ultimate decision.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Manage People’s Expectations in an Acquisition
Is the firm opening a Los Angeles office, one young copywriter wonders aloud. “I’d love to move to LA. Get myself a convertible.” No one knows for sure what is happening to their New York advertising agency, Sterling Cooper. But something surely is afoot as the partners remain huddled in the executive conference room.
It turns out the firm is being acquired by a larger London ad agency, and all bets are off. “There’s definitely going to be some redundancies,” says a secretary. Everyone is panicked. Is their job “redundant?”
An account manager lowers his voice conspiratorially: “Regime change is always tricky. You want to stay neutral. Loyalists are always hung and you don’t want to get caught in the fall-out.”
Another adds, “They don’t care about us. We’re just a bunch of salaries on a ledger. They’ll draw a line and get rid of everything below it.”
The traffic manager whines, “I like this company the way it is.”
Sound familiar? Is it real life? No, but it may as well be. It’s a scene from the final episode of the second season of “Mad Men,” an original dramatic series on cable TV, from AMC. Placed in the early 1960s, it no doubt accurately reflects the fear that is felt among employees in an acquired firm.
For dramatic effect, while the news of the merger is sifting through the Sterling Cooper organization, there is a very real fear overhanging the world due to the October 1962 Cuban missile crisis, which mirrors and exacerbates the angst of those in the firm and their uncertainties of the coming merger.
This isn’t 1962 and times do change, but not in the realm of mergers and acquisitions and their effect on the people at ground level – the ones who aren’t reaping the profits that owners and partners do.
Mergers and acquisitions foment uncertainty, dislocation, fear – and worse. Much of that - the natural human reaction to radical change - cannot be avoided. Changes that such events bring also spawn questions that cannot be answered right away. And when questions can’t be answered promptly, the rumor mill takes over.
What can be managed, on the other hand, are people’s expectations, and insights into how decisions affecting their lives will be made, and when, as well as communicating why some questions will remain open for a time.
In today’s business world, much of the value of an acquired firm resides in its people. The acquiring company buys brand names, patents, manufacturing facilities, equipment and the like, to be sure. But without the people, it is an empty shell. So it is incumbent on the senior managers to do all within their power to reassure the people and reinforce the company's core values so that the talent won’t make a beeline for the door the day the sale closes.
At base, effective, relevant and timely communications will go far in achieving the core business purpose of the merger, which is to preserve and enhance the value of the acquired company by building trust and credibility among the new employees.
Often, the danger lies in the early days before much is known and few of the big questions can be answered. The acquiring firm will often communicate reassuring words that “nothing (or little) will change” and that people should just keep doing what they’ve always done.
But as the deal shakes out and the questions begin to find answers, the early general communications may be inadvertently contradicted. It can’t be helped. Much is discovered in the early “honeymoon” phase that hadn’t been anticipated, necessitating unplanned changes in plans.
Change is like that. The key is to approach the employees and managers of the acquired firm with honesty and reassurance.
The key messages stay simple, direct and honest:
It turns out the firm is being acquired by a larger London ad agency, and all bets are off. “There’s definitely going to be some redundancies,” says a secretary. Everyone is panicked. Is their job “redundant?”
An account manager lowers his voice conspiratorially: “Regime change is always tricky. You want to stay neutral. Loyalists are always hung and you don’t want to get caught in the fall-out.”
Another adds, “They don’t care about us. We’re just a bunch of salaries on a ledger. They’ll draw a line and get rid of everything below it.”
The traffic manager whines, “I like this company the way it is.”
Sound familiar? Is it real life? No, but it may as well be. It’s a scene from the final episode of the second season of “Mad Men,” an original dramatic series on cable TV, from AMC. Placed in the early 1960s, it no doubt accurately reflects the fear that is felt among employees in an acquired firm.
For dramatic effect, while the news of the merger is sifting through the Sterling Cooper organization, there is a very real fear overhanging the world due to the October 1962 Cuban missile crisis, which mirrors and exacerbates the angst of those in the firm and their uncertainties of the coming merger.
This isn’t 1962 and times do change, but not in the realm of mergers and acquisitions and their effect on the people at ground level – the ones who aren’t reaping the profits that owners and partners do.
Mergers and acquisitions foment uncertainty, dislocation, fear – and worse. Much of that - the natural human reaction to radical change - cannot be avoided. Changes that such events bring also spawn questions that cannot be answered right away. And when questions can’t be answered promptly, the rumor mill takes over.
What can be managed, on the other hand, are people’s expectations, and insights into how decisions affecting their lives will be made, and when, as well as communicating why some questions will remain open for a time.
In today’s business world, much of the value of an acquired firm resides in its people. The acquiring company buys brand names, patents, manufacturing facilities, equipment and the like, to be sure. But without the people, it is an empty shell. So it is incumbent on the senior managers to do all within their power to reassure the people and reinforce the company's core values so that the talent won’t make a beeline for the door the day the sale closes.
At base, effective, relevant and timely communications will go far in achieving the core business purpose of the merger, which is to preserve and enhance the value of the acquired company by building trust and credibility among the new employees.
Often, the danger lies in the early days before much is known and few of the big questions can be answered. The acquiring firm will often communicate reassuring words that “nothing (or little) will change” and that people should just keep doing what they’ve always done.
But as the deal shakes out and the questions begin to find answers, the early general communications may be inadvertently contradicted. It can’t be helped. Much is discovered in the early “honeymoon” phase that hadn’t been anticipated, necessitating unplanned changes in plans.
Change is like that. The key is to approach the employees and managers of the acquired firm with honesty and reassurance.
The key messages stay simple, direct and honest:
- We acquired your company because of the excellence it adds to ours. It would be unwise for us to do anything that diminishes or destroys that excellence.
- Please work with us as we get to know one another better, as we learn how we will operate together going forward.
- Help us discover your best practices and show us how they might benefit the new larger company.
- Please understand that there will be stumbles along the way. We will always try to minimize the mistakes and hope that you will be stick with us through the rough patches.
- By working together, by striving to achieve the best for our customers, our employees and our stockholders, we will all succeed together and the final product will be more than the sum of the two components.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)