For Your Approval

Clinical communication

There's a creepy, clinical edge to how many people refer to employee communication. Anyone who has taken a PR diploma, attended an IABC conference or reads the trade publications serving our field knows what I'm talking about. Strategic internal communication is all about "changing behavior," "aligning the interests of employees and the enterprise," "securing buy-in," "increasing mindshare," or "leveraging human capital."

Yuck. Could we be more Orwellian than this? The term "internal propagandist" comes to mind.

And yet the spirit behind these icky terms is not a bad one -- everyone wants to do meaningful work and to make a difference. It so happens that employee communicators are in the business of influencing behavior and changing attitudes, even if it's in relatively benign ways like making sure people understand the latest changes to the benefits program or urging them to try not to waste money.

But I sure don't like the terminology. It doesn't reflect the changing values of our society, which is rebelling against the hierarchy and paternalism that defined the generation that, thank goodness, is on its way out. And it doesn't reflect how most internal communicators think about their role.

So, instead of influencing behavior, we earn trust and support. Instead of aligning interests, we listen and learn. Instead of leveraging human capital, we tell stories that help build strong internal communities. And instead of securing buy-in and increasing mindshare, we support positive change and start meaningful conversations.

This shift in language is not just turning unattractive words into cute ones. It represents a shift in attitude. It rejects a paradigm centered on clinical control, and recognizes the humanity of what we do.

A new addition to the C-suite?

Could it be that in the next few years we'll see a new acronym added to the already crowded "C-suite"?

We've already got CEOs, CIOs, CFOs, COOs, CMOs -- along with a rare number of chief communications officers (I think I've heard of one - remind me if there are more). Unfortunately, we'll probably never see a CECO (chief employee communications officer) but, in this new age in which the "war on talent" is escalating and retaining employees is one of the top business issues, could we see the emergence of a CRRO -- a chief recruitment and retention officer?

The CRRO would be responsible soley for attracting and keeping people. Human resources and employee communications would report to this executive, who would have sweeping powers to crush bureacracy, train leaders to care about their people, create a comfortable workplace, pay fair salaries and nurture a meaningful dialogue with employees. 

A boy can dream, can't he?

We can all learn from country music

I just finished watching -- no, savouring -- the two-and-a-half hour Country Music Television (CMT) tribute to Reba McIntyre.

I cried like a big fat baby through most of it. I'm a total sucker for the kind of sentiment that is alive and well in what writer Nicolas Dawidoff called "The Country of Country.'

The show, the first in a new "CMT Giants" series, celebrated Reba's remarkable show business career, mainly through beautiful tributes, in words and in song, from Reba's music industry friends, including Faith Hill, Dolly Parton, Trish Yearwood, Martina McBride and Wynonna -- in other words, some of the greatest voices in country music.

Those folks down in Nashville know how to touch a person's heart. They look you in the eye. They talk and sing about what it means to be human. They're not afraid of showing their frailty. And they sure know how to celebrate their own community. The TV special combined real, human emotions with superb production values. (You shoulda seen the red dress Reba wore for the final number, her superb cover of the Bobby Gentry classic, Fancy. My, my, Reba sure looked fine.)

Employee communicators could take a few lessons from Reba and her friends.

"Do you know what the Southern definition of a true music lover is? It's a man who, if he hears a woman singing in the shower, puts his ear to the keyhole."
      - Mississippi shop owner Larry Finch, as quoted in "In the Country of Country"

NASA's Vision Crashes and Burns

I've written before in this blog about the value of written vision/mission statements. Here's one of the most inspiring I've ever seen:

"To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers...as only NASA can."

Wow! That's vision. Beyond the obvious and vaguely kitschy allusion to Star Trek, it's a sentence that's poetic, easy to understand, and captures one's imagination with its boldness and humanity.

A recent news item in the New York Times reports that NASA's inspiring mission statement was "quietly altered" earlier this year to this:

"to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research."

The key piece that was deleted (other than the poetry of the thing) is "to understand and protect our home planet." According to the Times, the change

"comes as an unwelcome surprise to many NASA scientists, who say the "understand and protect" phrase was not merely window dressing but actively influenced the shaping and execution of research priorities. Without it, these scientists say, there will be far less incentive to pursue projects to improve understanding of terrestrial problems like climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions."

The "understand and protect" phrase was used last year by NASA climate scientis James Hansen to defend his work. Hansen generated a lot of press by accusing political operatives of threatening him for speaking publicly about the danger of global climate change. So the mission statement change looks like the kind of draconian, paternalistic, politically motivated decision that has become a hallmark of the Bush administration.

Politics aside, it's a great example of how to destroy employee loyalty and engagement. The inspiring NASA mission statement was adopted in 2002 under Bush-appointed NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe after "an open process with scientists and employees across the agency." Which is how a good mission statement should be created, if you want it to resonate with the people who are responsible for delivering it.

Imagine if you're someone who was involved in the development of the 2002 statement. At a company I used to work for that was famous for its draconian CEO and its Kafkaesque bureacracy, we called these kinds of situations "BOHICA moments." BOHICA stands for "bend over, here it comes again."

Some, I'm sure, will be dusting off their resumes, but where else would anyone at NASA go to find similar work? The Chinese or Russian space agencies? Instead, like most demoralized employees, they will lose their motivation and start thinking of their jobs as paychecks rather than sources of fulfilment and pride. Productivity and quality will go down, costs will go up.

I feel sorry for the 19,000 employees who have to deal with this B.S. And I'm reminded of how important it is for communicators to do what they can to bring inspiring vision statements to life.

If someone changed the wording, and meaning, of your mission statement tomorrow, would anyone care?

Bring back the bowling scores!

Sometimes I wonder if the trend in recent years to toughen up internal publications and eliminate the "fluff" is misguided. Yes, bowling scores from the company league might not have anything to do with the business, but they have everything to do with creating a spirit of community -- something so many organizations have lost. What's wrong with publishing hard news and analysis about the company, AND softer stuff about its people?

Should you report on retirements?

I got a question in my e-mail the other day from a fellow IABC member who works in employee communications at a big national untility. She had recently received a request from HR to list employee retirements in the company magazine. The magazine doesn't publish birthdays or service anniversaries either.

"We're focused on retaining our current employees," she wrote. "Why celebrate those who are leaving the company?"

I told her she should list the retirements in the employee publication.

Not listing birthdays, I can see. But I’m not sure why companies don’t publish retirements and service anniversaries. These are important milestones in an employee’s  career, It’s a good thing to let others know about them, even if all it does is prompt a few people to send congratulatory e-mails or pick up the phone and make a brief, positive connection.

Service anniversaries and retirements are important information if you want to create some sense of community and pride in your organization. How much room do they take up anyway? If you do a basic listing  at the back of the publication, even with small photos, we’re not talking  about a lot of  space. If some people don’t want to read it, they can turn the page. But for the people named, and their colleagues, this  kind of attention can mean a  lot.

I once worked for a company that did not publish the names of retiring or departing employees during a large downsizing. Those who remained were disappointed that departures weren’t listed somewhere -- just  so they could know who had left. It would have  helped provide some closure during a stressful and uncertain time.

Holy Grail, Inc.

We struggle. We try this strategy, and that tactic. And we flounder.

The challenge of engaging employees -- of truly making a difference by communicating effectively with people -- seems too much. True fulfilment hovers beyond our reach.

So we turn to a fishmonger. Or a pollster. Or a management guru. Someone who has figured it out. Someone we would follow into a fire. Someone to whom we can pay big bucks to help us make a better company, with happier people, who care about their customers, and their employer, and each other.

Why do we need gurus, and copyrighted slogans, and patented systems to help us solve our internal issues? It's as if we all crave some kind of a corporate Doctor Phil to tell us how to be happy -- someone who can reduce everything down to a few phrases we can all understand, and provide us with a Master Plan to hang our hopes on.

A long time ago a colleague asked me, "Do you know what a consultant is?"

"No," I said, playing along.

"A consultant is someone who charges you for the time of day...and asks to use your watch."

As a consultant, I now resemble that remark. My own clients turn to me because they crave an outside perspective to help them decide how to address internal issues. They get trapped in the day-to-day grind and they crave someone who they can trust who will help them see things in a new light. They also want someone who has the time and engery to focus on the longer term stuff because it seems all they do all day is deal with the latest crisis and put out the most recent fire.

How do you use consultants, and do they make your life easier? Are there some things they're better at solving than others? Are they a real help, or a threat to your position'?

11 ways to improve approvals

I delivered my first teleseminar yesterday, on how to improve the approval process. I think it went okay but it’s impossible to tell until the evaluation results come in.

What a strange communication medium. It’s quite daunting to speak for a full hour into a telephone with complete silence on the other end of the line. The last half hour was opened up for questions, which was much more relaxing and fun.

With the topic of the session fresh in my mind, I thought I’d share an extremely condensed version with you.

11 ways to improve approvals

1. The more work done up front to determine the content and angle of the story, the easier the approvals. The more detailed and thorough the planning, the more comfortable management is with what you do. Story lineups and editorial calendars are helpful tools, but even if you don’t have a master plan, engage in a constant dialogue with your internal contacts to determine what needs to be covered and when. No surprises = easier approvals.

2. It pays to build positive relationships with internal stakeholders. Whether approvals are simple or complex, they are easier to deal with if the editor has the trust and support of executives and content providers. Indeed, the very act of consulting with an executive about what tack a story should take, or asking someone to review a drafted story, are important bits of relationship-building. When effective editors have issues, they face them head-on, and they prefer to have a face-to-face conversation with their colleagues.

3. Written guidelines and formal processes help. Style guides, written values and principles, boilerplate e-mails outlining how a reviewer should look at an article—even a written publication “manifesto” from the CEO in the first issue of a new magazine—all these contribute to a greater feeling of control by the editor and a stronger sense of confidence among stakeholders. Written guidelines also help to resolve arguments. Write them in peacetime, refer to them when war breaks out.

4. Streamline the process. Only the sources who are quoted should see the draft of a story unless there’s a good reason for a lawyer to look at it. The fewer people who have to review a story, the better its chances are of making it through the process intact.

5. Business literacy goes a long way toward building stakeholder confidence. The better an editor knows the business—its players, issues, sensitivities, long-term strategy, goals, and so on—the easier it is to earn trust and respect in his or her role.

6. Editors need a senior advocate. It almost goes without saying that the editors who have the support and backing of a senior executive, or, ideally, the CEO, wield more power, are more effective in their jobs and are more likely to achieve positive changes.

7. Research is an important tool. Almost nothing sells an idea better than, “We have talked to our employees, and this is what they want to know.” Survey data is extremely powerful in pushing forward an agenda that advocates more frank communication. No executive wants to waste money on an employee publication that is not respected by its readers. 

8. Technology can help streamline approvals. Editors who have to deal with complex approvals can benefit from using technology to streamline the process. Several different options exist, from web-based wikis that allow multiple users to make revisions to a master document, to specialized document management software like Livelink, to a simple network solution using the revisions function of Microsoft Word.

9. The more experienced the writer, the easier the approvals. If it’s an important story, don’t send in a junior staffer, student, or new freelancer. If you use freelance writers, it’s better to develop long-term relationships with them, and to make use of specialized knowledge and skills whenever possible. I know of companies where freelance writers have been working for the publication for so long that content providers will ask for them by name.

10. Using business unit communicators as point people can help. This approach can build trust and streamline approvals—although some successful editors like to go directly to the source because involving other communicators complicates matters. For the most part, though, having someone “on the ground” who knows the issues and the players is a useful technique.

11. Executives will always be reluctant to address controversial issues in print, or in any medium for that matter. In the end, if the only way an executive is comfortable talking about sensitive issues is in face-to-face meetings, so be it. Hold as many face-to-face meetings as you can, then, and the information will get out.

Any more points you'd add to this list?

Any war stories to share?

Any questions?

Any positive feedback from my session yesterday?

Anyone? Anyone?

In cyberspace, no one can hear you scream. Unless you have RSS.

Escape from approval hell

I named this blog For Your Approval because the review/approval process is at the centre of every employee communicator's job. Getting stories approved can be a living hell, and after over 20 years in this business it still causes me plenty of grief.

Over the years I have been obsessed with the topic. I've studied it, written on it, presented on it, and next week I will be delivering the definitive teleseminar on it, hosted by my friends at Ragan Communications.

If you want to join me in a deep dive into the murky realm of managing approvals, sign up today. I promise you'll come out of it feeling clean and refreshed, and with at least one or two things you'll be able to immediately apply in your job.

Peanut Butter and Jelly Communications

Anyone who has a teenage child, or was one, knows how fast a relationship can deteriorate into an ugly battle. Somebody says something disrespectful, or does something that gets taken the wrong way, and all hell breaks loose. And then it’s a struggle to mend fences, make amends, get things back to normal.

It’s a good metaphor for employee communications, especially during difficult times. Big organizations can be stupid beasts, not unlike inattentive parents who make big assumptions about what motivates their people, and who try to exercise ham-fisted control over them, only to have them rebel. And employees, like teenagers struggling to find their own identity, love to demonize authority figures, rejecting their leadership to the point where the relationship becomes barely tolerable, if not totally poisonous.

Of course, I’m not the first to draw this comparison. In their insightful book, Peanut Butter and Jelly Management, Chris and Reina Komisarjevsky draw all kinds of lessons from parenting and apply them to corporate leadership. “When we think about the home and about the workplace, we see parallels,” they write. “To us, the link is as natural as peanut butter and jelly. We came to that view after watching what went on with our own children at home and then, over time, noticing similarities at work.”

Here are a few bits of simple but sound parenting wisdom directed at corporate leaders, which apply equally well to employee communicators:

• Focus your energy on the things that are really important.

• Create a fabric of strong values – and live them yourself every day.

• Be attentive – watch, listen, observe, think about what is going on – remembering always that you and everyone around you are only human.

“Parenting is one of the toughest jobs on earth. It just may be the toughest job,” the authors proclaim. As a parent I agree. But corporate leadership is even tougher in some ways. Teenagers seldom run away, but employees faced with bad leadership are very quick to leave forever to join a less dysfunctional employer.

As parents and/or communicators, our job is to keep the conversations civil, the judgments tolerant and the respect for people high. If an organization, like a family, can survive a difficult time together, it will come out stronger, happier, and ready to take on the world.

What things have you learned about family life that apply to the corporate universe?