For Your Approval

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?

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.

The frustrated communicator

It's no wonder that the role of employee communicator is often a burnout job.

How many times have you had a story ready to go out to your organization's employees, only to have it pulled or drastically changed at the last minute by executives who are nervous, or have second thoughts, or just feel like getting under the hood and getting their hands dirty?

I'm not sure if any other profession has this particular problem, or at least has it to the degree we do. And that's understandable, because once something is published, it's out there, exposed for all to see, and there is no shortage of critics and nitpickers in the corporate world. Many executives are perfectionists. That's how they achieved their success. And they're politically aware. That's how they survived their journey to the top. And they're overly sensitive because all they do all day is deal with a myriad of problems and complaints. They don't need another one caused by a newsletter article.

But time and time again I've seen this kind of instinctive, meddlesome behaviour frustrate and demotivate communicators, and leave employees in an information vacuum. There is no fully effective vaccine for this illness, but there are some tactics that will help reduce outbreaks and help the wounds caused by it heal faster:

1. Do it right. A well-researched, well-written article that has been checked by subject matter experts has a far better chance of getting out than one that has factual errors and poor transitions.

2. Get buy-in ahead of time. If an issue is sensitive, discuss the approach you're going to take ahead of time and get approval in principle. No surprizes equals less meddling.

3. Stick up for yourself. Communicators, especially ones early in their careers, often end up just giving in. But if you have the courage to say, "Look, this shouldn't be happening" and back up your defence based on sound principles like the need for open, timely communication, you'd be surprised at how much respect you'll earn.

4. Empathize. Executives are humans, too, although sometimes it doesn't seem that way. Try to understand what motivates the irksome behavior instead of just being angry with it.

5. Have a drink. Straight vodka works for me.

A Hot New Business Magazine

A couple of years ago, I had an idea for a new business magazine. I even wrote a detailed proposal and tried to pitch it to a publisher.

The publication, Handler, would be designed to serve all the people who work behind the scenes to manage today’s leaders.

My target audience would include vice presidents, senior PR advisors, talent agents, speechwriters, political operatives, executive assistants and, of course, employee communications specialists.

The tone would be edgy and somewhat dark; Waylon Smithers would be the mag’s unofficial mascot. The goal of Handler would be to provide sympathy, advice and a healthy dose of black humor to those who have the thankless job of making difficult bosses look good.

There would be lots of interesting departments.

A regular advice column, “Ask the Puppetmaster,” written under a pen name by an ex-Ronald Reagan aide, would respond to questions from handlers who need help getting out of touchy situations. “Dear Puppetmaster. My CEO has the worst fitting toupee I’ve ever seen, but no one is brave enough to tell him how stupid he looks. How can a broach the subject without being fired? Signed Sheepish in Seattle.” Or, “Dear Puppetmaster. I work for the president-for-life of my country and there are ten thousand people camped outside of the palace chanting for his head. I need an exit strategy. Any advice would be deeply appreciated! Signed Cayman Islands or Bust. ” And so on.

In each issue we’d also have a regular feature called “How the Mighty Fall,” in which we would showcase horror stories from handlers whose leaders couldn’t or wouldn’t take advice, leading to tragic results. For example, “I Told Jack Welch Not to Accept That Interview Request from the Harvard Business Review" or “In Imelda’s Shoes: Memories of Managing the Marcos’.” The writers, of course, would be granted anonymity if it were needed.

Handler would have a practical bent, with tips, tricks and techniques for improving your leader’s image and preserving your own sanity. “Ten Ways to Say No to your Leader While Leading Him to Believe You’re Saying Yes,” “What to Think About While You’re Getting Yelled At” and “When 60 Minutes Calls: A Handler’s Guide” would be reader favorites.

Every year Handler would publish the equivalent of Mr. Blackwell’s worst dressed list. The Adolph Awards, nicknamed The Little Hitlers, would list the world’s ten worst leaders, with special categories like “Best Dressed Despot,” “Sociopath of the Year” and the “Syphilitic Idiot Lifetime Achievement Award.” In the same special issue there would also, of course, be the “Dreamboat Awards,” recognizing the top five leaders (if we can find enough of them to fill out the list) who are easy to deal with, gratefully take advice, demonstrate humility and charm and always do the right thing.

The publisher thought my idea had merit, but it wasn’t quite their style. And so the proposal sits buried in my office somewhere, waiting for the day when I have the time and money to publish Handler myself. In the meantime, I'm building a file. Any horror stories or useful advice you'd like to share?