The Movement to Open Communication Cultures

by Roger D’Aprix

In my last blog I suggested that we were unlikely to see the fulfillment of a vision of full corporate democracy imagined by a new generation of anti-authority Internet bloggers. Their dream is of the end of corporate hierarchy and autocracy to be replaced by consultation and the flowering of social media that presumably will influence, if not drive, leadership action and behavior. But that vision seldom gets articulated clearly, and one is left to imagine what the new age will look like.

No doubt the digital age that is truly in its infancy will inevitably have a profound impact on the communication style and behavior of today’s organizations. The growing interest and actual creation of internal social media is one of the hottest trends in our profession today. Not every organization is joining in, but the degree of interest reflected in various communication publications and meetings is intense. Social media alone, however, are not sufficient in the drive to open communication cultures.

The earliest adapters of greater openness seem to be the usual suspects—those organizations that are on the leading edge of all things new and novel. It’s a good bet that if there is going to be a significant movement to greater employee inclusion and openness that it will happen in these companies first. They are the leading candidates to create any movement toward less hierarchy and greater inclusion and collaboration.

iStock_000010031937XSmallPredictably, they will also continue to have as their imitators those companies that are receptive to new trends but that are not necessarily pioneers. They too fall in the category of early adapters. In both cases, they will for a time be in the minority as companies contemplate the benefits and risks of greater openness.

That leaves most of the remaining organizations today in a range of positions from heightened awareness of the potential opportunities posed by the digital age to caution occasioned by the perceived risks of openness. A small minority of the late adapters will continue to resist openness at every turn and to rely on spin and failed attempts at information control.

In the end what is likely to create movement toward open communication cultures are two forces. The first is the obvious one of the irresistibility of the information revolution powered by ubiquitous digital technology. The other is perhaps less obvious. It will be the eventual ability of our profession to connect all the dots and to create integrated information strategies that will knit together social media, the need for innovation and collaboration, and the strong business case for openness. That case is increasingly evident from a variety of respected researchers. It remains for us to do our job and to integrate the moving parts in a compelling fashion.

Published June 3, 2010 – 5:48 pm Categories: Communication Strategy and Planning, Perspectives | Post a comment

Who’s Managing Whom?

by Aaron Heinrich

Imagine this workplace scenario. You work for a company run by a member of the Silent Generation – those born between 1925 and 1944. Let’s say he or she is in their late 60s or early 70s.  You are in your late 30s, which makes you a member of Generation X, and you are managed by a member of the baby boomer set; let’s say someone in their late 40s.  You manage several staff who are in their early to mid-20s or Gen Y-ers.  That may sound typical, following what would normally have occurred in a fairly traditional company.

The bossIn fact, according to a Career Builder Survey, this scenario, as typical as it may sound, is actually far from typical.  That survey found 43 percent of workers ages 35 and older currently work for younger bosses, as do 53 percent of workers ages 45 and up, and 69 percent of workers who are 55 or older. That means not only are Baby Boomers being managed by Gen X or Gen Y, but sometimes the age gap can even result in a Gen X-er reporting to a Millennial manager.

What this has done has created some very unique management challenges. In particular, the survey also found that a significant percentage of workers (16 percent) who were 25 to 34 said they found it difficult to take direction from a younger boss, but only five percent of workers age 55 and up had problems with it.

Complaints about younger managers run the gamut and include micromanagement, a sense of entitlement, favoritism with younger colleagues, and not giving enough direction. Sound familiar?

These are age old and ageless management problems that people with advanced degrees, colleges with massive research budgets, and consultants with $500/hour billing rates have been trying to solve since some guy managing the fire told another guy to go get more wood.

It should be no surprise that you could be managing people who may not like you or you could be managed by a boss you believe doesn’t deserve his or her position. Most of us have or will be in one of these situations at some point in our career. Rather than fight either situation, imagine an alternative one where the tables could be turned—you’re the younger boss managing an employee either close to your age or much older, or you’re the one being managed. Then do everything you can to be the manager who’d get you to do your best work and the employee who’d do the best work for you. That isn’t a multi-step process, but it’s one many people of all ages have trouble taking the first step toward.

Published May 26, 2010 – 6:42 am Categories: Leader and Manager Communication, Perspectives | Post a comment

Sun Tsu’s Guide to Communication Effectiveness

by John Robertson

Sun Tsu, a Chinese military commander from the sixth century BC, wrote a book titled The Art of War that is considered by many to be the definitive work on military strategy. The book’s influence is widespread and has been used by military leaders throughout the centuries, and most recently has been applied to Western business strategy and management tactics.

Sun Tsu’s insights can also be applied to communications, particularly how to ensure effectiveness of your work. Here are a few pearls from The Art of War and how they might apply.

“Every Battle is Won Before it is Fought.”

This goes right to the heart of why developing a communication strategy is important. A good strategy starts with understanding your goals, both communication and the larger organization goals. These will shape and drive your communication strategy.

“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”

Building off of the earlier quote, having a clear plan to achieve your communication strategy is the quickest way to produce results. Without a clear plan, your chances of success are unknown at best.

A good plan also provides direction to the team responsible for implementation, and builds confidence with your stakeholders because they can see how the results will be achieved.

“If you Know Your Enemy and Know Yourself, You Need Not Fear the Result.”

In
 communications, knowing your audience is as important as knowing your enemy (or your competition), and understanding your audience is the key to selecting the right messages and vehicles. To gain an understanding, ask yourself these questions:

  • What are their current attitudes and beliefs on the subject?
  • What channels do they trust the most?
  • What channels do they prefer for this content?
  • When and how do they normally access content, and for how long?

Use the answers to these questions to determine the appropriate content, tone and vehicles for your communications. If you are unsure of how to answer these questions, it may be time to consider evaluating your communication vehicles.

“If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame. But if his orders are clear, and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers.”

This reinforces the importance of effective leadership and manager communications, which not coincidentally, are components in our ROI Scorecard.  Employees need to understand the company’s strategy, and research has shown they want this direction to come from senior leadership.  Connecting the dots between the strategy and the employee’s role is the job of the line manager. The important thing to note is that both need to happen to produce the desired results.

It is fascinating to see that words written so long ago have a practical use in today’s environment. At the very least, they are a reminder of what’s important.

Published May 10, 2010 – 3:21 pm Categories: Communication Strategy and Planning | Post a comment

Corporate Democracy versus Corporate Hierarchy

by Roger D’Aprix

A very interesting trend has emerged in internal communication circles over the last several years. It’s the formation of a group of professional communicators who are ardently anti-hierarchical in their thinking and philosophy. For the most part their position has been shaped by the politics and viewpoint of Internet bloggers, who believe that organizations will only thrive to the extent that they become more democratic in their thinking and functioning. And who see the validity of one’s opinions based not on position in a hierarchy or seniority but rather on logic, careful reasoning and independent thinking. With more than a little legitimacy, they claim that the bureaucratic business model, topped by a hierarchy of senior leaders and line managers in descending order of position power, is obsolete in a fast-paced economy.

different people taking diverse positions and levels collage.Their faith is in the wisdom of teams and the good intentions of corporate citizens. But to put it bluntly, many of them also seem to have an authority hang-up, a not uncommon perspective in Western countries with well-developed economies and long histories of relative prosperity. It’s also not surprising that well-educated workers with other options would chaff a bit under arbitrary decision-making by people who are used to having their directives obeyed and their privileges reserved.

But in the end, the hard truth is that someone has to be in charge and take responsibility for results. That makes some degree of hierarchy, regardless of how we soften it or label it, inevitable. The debate—if we can call it that—between corporate democracy and corporate hierarchy is cast in terms that are too black and white, too much ‘the good guys versus the bad guys.’

In an earlier version of this debate some years ago, there was a school of thought that argued that internal communication professionals should be permitted to play the role of investigative journalists in their organizations. The idea was that they would be given the democratic freedom to report events as they saw them, without review and with as much objectivity as their brothers and sisters in the public media. Not surprisingly, there were few, if any, senior leaders willing to fund a free press within their walls. So that particular discussion went nowhere although it did open things up a bit and make people more self-conscious about obvious spin in their communications.

No doubt the dialogue that is pervasive on the Internet and that is being advocated as healthy in the context of corporate social media will tend to influence more candid and more inclusive internal communication. But as the corporate autocrats used to complain as they contemplated, first, participative management, and later, employee engagement, “You think we’re going to sit around and take a vote on every decision?” The hard truth is that it’s highly unlikely any of us will ever see that day. More inclusion? Yes. More consultation? Yes. But outright corporate democracy and the end of hierarchy?  I wouldn’t put any money on it.

Published April 26, 2010 – 7:37 am Categories: Communication Governance, Perspectives | Post a comment

What the Numbers Don’t Tell Us

by Aaron Heinrich

The interesting thing about statistics is how they can be used to make or break a point depending not so much on the numbers themselves, but how the numbers get used, and what you need to keep in mind when using them. Take this statistic from the Bureau of Labor Statistics–by 2014, nearly one-third of the total U.S. workforce (32%) will be age 50 or older. This will be a significant increase from 27 percent in 2005.

iStock_000009967066XSmallThe interesting thing about this isn’t that the number probably seems high—I certainly thought so–but that this number was derived before the current economic downturn forced most of those planning on retirement to put off those plans another five or 10 years, maybe even forever. An entire generation may actually be working until they die.

According to a study by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Baby Boomers Envision Retirement II: Survey of Baby Boomers’ Expectations for Retirement (September 2004) eight out of ten Boomers expect to work at least part time in their so-called retirement years. Another interesting statistic, but considering again that this study was completed nearly six years ago, it wouldn’t take a statistician to determine that given the spate of articles about boomers foregoing retirement the number staying on the job is potentially much higher than eight out of 10. For the Gen Xers and Millenials who’ve been itching for the 48 and older elders to leave sooner than later, this new workforce reality is going to “suck.”

When resources are scarce, conflict is sure to arise. There’s already a scarcity of jobs. Compound that with a scarcity of managerial jobs because they’re being held tightly by an entire generation that can’t afford to give them up any time soon, and imagine the conflicts that will ensue.

Employee engagement may be one of the initial aspects to suffer if there’s no chance to move up or move on. Consequently, new reward systems, performance measurement, and even job titles may have to be created to keep multi-generations engaged in something other than backoffice maneuvering for management jobs that will be difficult to come by. More important will be improved management techniques and communication skills that will emphasize and reward collaboration and team work at a time when many employees will be driven by self-interest and preservation.

Five years from now, we can hope for a statistic that proves this out, no matter which way you look at it.

Published April 19, 2010 – 3:35 pm Categories: Communication Measurement | Post a comment

The Role of Emotion in Making Decisions

by John Robertson

At ROI, we pride ourselves on collecting quantifiable data to help clients understand situations and make informed decisions.  Like many, we subscribe to the motto that “facts are our friends.”

Interestingly though, we see that regardless of what the data says, people still rely on their emotions when making decisions. This isn’t just limited to communications. If you look around, you can see plenty of that actions contradict what the facts says should happen.

think!Well, it turns out that this is simply human nature and that we are wired to use our emotions when making decisions. In fact, we have two sections in our brains called the amygdalae whose sole purpose is to fuel our decisions with emotion.

Furthermore, in a study of risk and decision making, researchers found that even when people are presented with odds of success, they still chose riskier options, even when the odds say there was a greater chance of loss.

So, should we abandon data-based decision making and just go with our gut tells us to do? Hardly.

The key is to understand the role that emotion plays, and build your strategy to leverage it. Obviously, what you present and how you present it is key. In addition to the quantitative stuff, you need to pull in other types of information to build your story. Qualitative information like quotes and first-hand observational data are great ways to produce the desired emotional reaction. Combine these with the data and you have a recipe for success. Here’s a hypothetical example of how this would work:

Let’s say you conduct a readership survey of the company magazine.. The results show that 55% of employees don’t find the company magazine a valuable source of information. You want to recommend cancelling the magazine, but it has a 15 year history, so you anticipate some resistance. To engage your audience’s emotions, along with the date, you select 3-4 write-in comments that reinforce your findings through the employees’ voice. Finally, you include a full-slide photo that shows the mailroom’s recycling bin filled with unread copies.

The combination of quantitative, qualitative and observational provides your audience with facts, but also produces the emotions necessary to produce the right actions.

The other benefit of using the different sources of information is they can be used to validate each other (i.e., “Does the data match the comments?”) This makes the findings even more compelling.

Published April 12, 2010 – 7:01 am Categories: Communication Strategy and Planning | Post a comment

The Magic of Face-to-Face Conversation

by Roger D’Aprix

A few days ago I had the exhilarating experience of meeting with four colleagues in a two-day, brainstorming session. The members of the group have known each other for years as colleagues and even as competitors, so this was a group with a common history.

United around the tableOur subject was differentiation in what has become a crowded profession. We spent a lot of time reflecting on the rather unsurprising premise that consulting is fundamentally about human relationships—personal relationships between the consultant and his or her clients and corporate relationships with customers, shareholders, communities and all of the other constituents that leaders care about.

The insights that flowed from that premise were informative, but what really struck me was the magic of a face-to-face conversation among five highly experienced and caring people. I was reminded once again that there is no virtual substitute for the dynamics of a face-to-face experience. There’s no way to capture the tone of voice, body language, energy, or enthusiastic interruptions for different ideas careening around the room. With the right participants wrestling with an important subject, meeting in person is an intellectual experience without equal.

The use of technology in today’s corporate environment has created a manic necessity for instant decisions and input, leaving us little time for such valuable face-to-face interludes. Instead, we conference call, email and text or tweet our half-formed thoughts as though these terms really were action verbs instead of nouns.

Clearly, the technology train has left the station. Although there’s probably little chance of going back to a more reflective time we should make time for face-to-face conversations in between rapid-fire messaging. Based on what I recently experienced, in-person conversations are not only useful for relationship building and productive outcomes, but they’re more efficient than you might think.

Published March 29, 2010 – 2:58 pm Categories: Perspectives | Post a comment

In the age of technology, it’s not about age at all

by Aaron Heinrich

Anyone out there want to take a guess at how many entries you’ll get if you google “multi-generational workforce?” Try over 450,000. Sure, that’s not the over 20 million you’ll get by googling Lindsay Lohan, but it is an amount worth tweeting about.

multiple generationsAs I read through some of the blog posts that come up, I wonder whether or not any of the entities writing, consulting and complaining about this phenomenon have actually spent any time in a multi-generational workplace. Most of the contributors categorize baby boomers as the “me” generation, Gen Xers as the cynical generation, and the Millenials or Echo Boomers with
every term related to super-connectivity which leads me to believe that the closest they’ve gotten to “multi-generational” experience is their last family reunion.

I’m not criticizing the labels as much as I’m pointing out that what’s really driving the differences within the workforce is not just chronological age, but the speed and willingness of technology adoption at the individual level, regardless of how old we are.

My dad is in his mid-70s and spends more time on his computer with an ease that I never thought would be possible 20 years ago. He has multiple email  accounts, a Facebook page, and a large library of music. Yet, I have heard of CEOs in their 40s who still don’t quite get the concept of email — they ask their assistants to print them out for them — and certainly don’t understand Twitter, Facebook or even LinkedIn.  I’ve met 20-somethings who have sworn off as much social networking as they feel they can get away with, and 30-somethings who wouldn’t know how to live without their smartphone for a day.   Yet all of these people could very well work in the
same place together, separated or united as much by their affinity and adoption for the technology du jour as they are by their expectation of how they are managed and rewarded.

As with any issue, the multi-generational workforce is one that has multiple points of view and varied dynamics.  The sooner we realize that age is not the only factor, and possibly not even the deciding one, the more likely we can start making this unique and historical situation work instead of working to make it unique.

Published March 16, 2010 – 8:35 am Categories: Perspectives, Uncategorized | Post a comment

What happens when you and your clients aren’t speaking the same language?

by Sandy Pfaff

As communicators, we’re constantly surrounded by buzzwords and jargon that no one outside of our companies or communications teams may understand.  So isn’t it fun when we all get to talk to each other?  We can “build on” each other’s perspectives, we can “to your point” each other to death, and we can talk ad nauseum about “deliverables” and “action items.”

But what happens when your client doesn’t use the same vocabulary?

I had this happen awhile back and it was instructive in how to try to have a conversation about communications strategy without resorting to jargon.  The disconnect in this case was the use of “press release.”   The client I was working with kept referring to wanting a “press release” when that wasn’t my recommended approach.  Or, for that matter, what I thought he really wanted either but it was the term he was most familiar with.  So what do you do?  Do you give in and say yes, and then do what you really think is best?  Or do you take a step back and try to define the outcome you want to achieve, strip out the jargon or confusing language, and agree on the approach.

In this case, I took the latter tack and eventually finished what was a challenging phone call relieved that it seemed that we were finally “on the same page.”  Until I got his follow up email, reiterating that he was expecting the press release by Monday.

Ah, such is the life of a consultant.

Published March 9, 2010 – 10:32 pm Categories: Perspectives | Post a comment

Mentoring in a Multi-Generational Workplace

by Roger D’Aprix

A recent survey from The Conference Board shows that Americans of all ages and income brackets are increasingly unhappy at work. Only 45 percent claim to be satisfied with their jobs, down from 61.1 percent in 1987. Worse, the youngest cohort of employees—those under age 25—express the highest level of dissatisfaction ever recorded for that age group with only 25.7 percent satisfied.

Mentoring at workLinda Barrington of The Conference Board notes that these numbers do not bode well for the multi-generational dynamics of the labor force. Only 46% of the Baby Boom generation express satisfaction with their jobs. Barrington worries that their growing dissatisfaction will negatively affect multi-generational knowledge transfer—an  increasingly important task in today’s competitive economy—not to mention the potential loss of discontented, young talent.

Workplace malaise aside, the hope in organizations has always been that the more experienced employee would mentor the less experienced. That usually meant that older, experienced workers would be training younger, less experienced workers in what seemed to be ‘the natural order.’ Increasingly today the mentoring process is being reversed. Those under-25 Gen Y workers, who practically teethed on computers and cell phones at the same time that they allegedly learned to expect the words “Good job” as their just due, are frequently the mentors to their older colleagues on all things technical

How both parties handle this changing role reversal and what it means going forward in their relationships will be important to future collaboration and knowledge transfer. What’s required on both sides is a willingness to learn as well as respect for the other’s experience and vulnerabilities. In other words this can be touchy.

Is there an answer to this long-standing issue of generational misunderstanding? The obvious one is the old bromide of improved communication. In short, learn to explore and appreciate one another’s values and life experience. Above all, don’t patronize or dismiss.

As a young man in my first corporate job, I found myself working under an entire generation of World War II veterans, who had tended to bring their military experience and its autocratic leadership styles back to the workplace. While it would be dishonest to say that I learned to appreciate ‘because I said so’ as the end of a discussion, in time I did learn to respect and even to feel some affection for many of my old bosses. The ultimate answer was to understand their battles and demons with compassion and understanding.  In return and over time, many of them eventually reciprocated my respect with a greater tolerance for dissent and questioning.

So if there’s an answer to the problem of inter-generational mentoring and knowledge transfer, I believe that it lies with this simple one of mutual respect, patience, tolerance for difference and the golden opportunity to learn from each other.

Published February 26, 2010 – 6:56 am Categories: Employee Engagement, Uncategorized | Post a comment