|
Anyone who works in our profession is a believer in the
tremendous
power of communication. We tend to see it as the lubricant that
makes an
organization work. We recognize its great emotional power to win
hearts
and minds. We see over and over how it can influence and shape
opinions.
We experience its ability to persuade people to go along with
changes that initially they may strongly resist.
What we often don’t recognize, however, is that it is not an end
in itself.
It is instead the process that is used to achieve an outcome.
And it is outcomes
that we are really interested in. This may sound like an
esoteric
point, but I have come to believe that failure to recognize and
acknowledge
it is the Achilles heel of our profession.
The organizational leaders that hire us and pay us are not
enamored with
communication as a process. In fact, if truth be told, they are
mistrustful
and fearful of the process because they understand that there is
risk connected with it. They may say the wrong thing at the wrong time. They
may have their words used against them in different
circumstances. They
may be totally misunderstood. They may even be mocked and have
their >
personal reputations impugned.
So when we extol the virtues of communication, we are often
extolling
the wrong thing. What we should be seeking is particular
outcomes—
understanding, acceptance, endorsement, agreement, appreciation
or
whatever reaction we want for a decision or an action. In some
ways that
is also a slippery slope because we know that we can’t control
outcomes;
we can only influence them. The control is always in the hands
of the
individual on the receiving end of the message. It is his or her
choice that
makes the difference.
So we need to be very careful in what we promise. Engagement,
the hot
communication topic these days, is a good case in point. The
simplistic
argument is that if we communicate effectively with people, we
have an excellent chance of obtaining their engagement with their work and with the goals of the organization. Many of today’s
engagement
efforts are predicated on that simple exchange. What those
efforts
overlook is that engagement is essentially a gift that the
organization
needs to earn by virtue of its actions and words with actions
carrying the
greater influence. Organizations that continually downsize,
outsource
and take away have yet to learn that vital lesson.
What’s interesting about the gift of engagement is that it is a
choice the
individual makes based on his or her understanding of the
organization’s
reality. Much of the engagement rhetoric these days is based on
the rubric
of employee satisfaction. Issues such as: “I’m recognized and
valued;
I know what’s expected of me; My opinions count; I have the
opportunity
to give my best; etc.” are offered as the determinant of
engagement.
What’s more, the implication is that engagement is a permanent
condition that is reached once and held for the long term.
A more real world explanation is that engagement is a temporary
condition
subject to change at any moment based on one’s understanding of
his or her situation. In other words it is a choice based on the
power of
understanding. The question is what shapes that understanding.
In my
view it is a combination of several things—the dynamics of the
marketplace,
the business strategy the organization chooses to cope with that
marketplace, how the actions and words of the leadership are
perceived
and the practices and policies that affect the welfare of the
workforce.
How all of that is communicated to that workforce is a critical
question.
Is the intent to use the communication process to influence
outcomes? If
so, does that communication lead to the clear understandings
that allow
people to make an intelligent and informed choice regarding
their engagement?
If we do our job right, we are supplying the information that
allows for
informed understanding and gives us an excellent chance at
having people
make a choice in favor of the organization. The kicker here is
that all
of this has to be properly aligned. That means that the
communication
process is reflecting the consistent messages sent by the
organization’s
leadership.
If you look at high performing organizations, the chances are
that they do
exactly that. The marketplace, the strategy, the words and
actions of the
leadership and all of the employee policies and practices send
the same
consistent message. And it is that message that leads to
understanding
and the choice to engage or disengage—a choice that is made not
once
but over and over again, depending on one’s understanding at any
point
in time. The result of that choice both individually and
collectively is
performance. And performance is the outcome that senior leaders
desperately
want.
Bottom line, our goal should be to seek favorable performance
outcomes
through the power of understanding informed by the process of
communication,
which is never an end in itself but only a means. That sort of
performance equation is the one that senior leaders are much
more inclined
to buy and support. |
