Intranets are the worst thing that ever happened to corporate journalism.
They reduce newsletter editors to blurb writers, force employees to adopt uncomfortable reading habits and hack away at the tenuous bond that companies have built with the people who work for them. And because they often replace, rather than complement, print communications, they also alienate huge numbers of employees who still don't have easy access to computers.
Don't get me wrong. Intranets are good for communicating with employees. Done well, they can give people access to useful information. These days you can sign up for your benefits online, get up-to-date production numbers and sales data, check the weather forecast and read the latest company announcement. But what happened to the human connection? What happened to corporate journalism, in the best sense of the term? Where are the real stories, well-told, that help to define a company's culture and make its employees feel like they're part of a caring community? And where is the shared experience that brings people together? I'm afraid that human warmth departed most organizations when the decision was made to scrap the company magazine to save printing costs.
Some intranets do achieve a certain degree of humanity, but mostly it's just a lot of chilly data being shoveled at employees who are snowed under with information, but starved for the warm glow of real meaning.
Part of the answer is in the emergence of "social media" like blogs, wikis and podcasts. These new channels hold the promise of re-humanizing internal communications after a long, cold, dark period of digital drek. But part of the answer is also going back to the old ways -- reestablishing the nearly dead tradition of providing employees with an interesting read, with great quotes, not made up by an editor in a hurry, but based on a real interview, and small details that perfectly capture the big picture.
An employee publication used to be something that provided a mirror, reflecting the essence of an organization back on itself. Today that mirror is badly fractured and it's up to employee communicators to repair it.
You look great in short hair! I get the urge every couple of years to go short then hate my life for like a year. I just don't have the fertuaes for it. My faves are Feb, May (cute shot) and now. You look great as a blonde and a redhead. It's no fair!
Posted by: Dipla | February 28, 2013 at 03:42 PM
Yes, Gillian. Sometimes we're too busy putting words in executives' mouths to actually invite front line employees to be part of the communication process. Not everyone is a writer, but most people can tell a half decent story about something meaningful to them. I have a client right now who's running a contest in the print newsletter, asking people to send in stories about how they are coping with some big changes that are going on in the organization. If their story gets in the publication, they get a dinner for two. A simple, modest incentive, but it's working.
Interesting point about getting senior leaders to buy into allowing workers to take time to contribute stories. You're laying the groundwork for success rather than having to deal with complaints and fears after the fact.
Posted by: Ron Shewchuk | February 26, 2006 at 05:27 PM
Another way to get your front line staff interested in the company newsletter is to get them involved in writing it. If (capital IF) you can get your VP/CEO to agree your company needs some new ways to engage front line staff, then get agreement from them to allow time for one person to write a relevant story about life on the front line - staff profile, etc. You can rotate the contributor by location or geography to help get everyone engaged.
Posted by: Gillian | February 25, 2006 at 09:40 PM
Dave, I agree. There's no turning back; although some organizations should, and will, return to print publications, most won't. When the last newsletter or magazine went out years ago, the internal distribution system that supported it disappeared. To relaunch print would mean a lot of rebuilding. And so we need to turn to the new media in order to escape the sausage-factory approach to Intranet postings. The answer lies in using new channels, and old channels in new ways, to rehumanize employee communications.
Posted by: Ron Shewchuk | February 19, 2006 at 10:40 AM
I'm working at a company now that eliminated print altogether when it switched to a company intranet. What I find troubling is that so many people seem to consider the simple act of "putting up" a story to be the end of the communication process. They try to have a story a day, but they're often more like notes than serious stories.
But I'm not one to think that companies are likely to move back to print. We need to take those qualities that we miss from "the good old days" and recreate them in a new, online environment. The challenges we face haven't changed -- just the tools we use to meet them.
Posted by: Dave Traynor | February 18, 2006 at 06:30 PM
Frankly I hope the shift comes later, rather than sooner. People still like to read something they're holding in their hands, and taking that away from them is a big communication gaffe, particularly in organizations that have employees who don't have access to computers. But I would argue that even in totally wired companies there's a place for print.
That being said, the role of print has changed, for sure. It can no longer serve to report news because information travels too fast these days. As my pal David Murray says, the print publication has transformed into the physical embodiment of a company's brand -- something an employee can read and get a sense of the company's values, its culture, its community spirit. And that's almost impossible to achieve in the digital realm. Although that's changing too, and I'll talk about it in an upcoming post.
Posted by: Ron Shewchuk | February 14, 2006 at 12:38 PM
Hi, Ron ..
Definitely not. We have the same "blue collar" worker issue raised earlier. But also, the intrinsic value in *printed* material as well as the idea of a protracted publishing schedule are very ingrained. It will be a while before we see a shift.
Posted by: Kate | February 14, 2006 at 11:57 AM
Thanks for the encouragement, Kate.
It's true, electronic media do have a disposable feel about them. Today's blog entry is tomorrow's digital fish wrap.
Involving senior leaders in the conversation does lend credibility to the corporate blogosphere, but you haven't eliminated print alltogether, have you?
Posted by: Ron Shewchuk | February 13, 2006 at 09:49 PM
Ron .. great blog! Excited to see you taking on this space. I'll definitely be passing on your site to my internal communications folks as we're just starting to understand how to complement our intranet with a more social media.
Something we're finding about newsletters vs blogs is the "prestige" factor. A newsletter is more like publishing, someone had to go to the trouble of *printing* it ... so it's perceived as more valuable (pixels are easy to create, right :-)
To overcome this, we've tried to enlist senior managers to comment on blog posts. This allows authors to keep prestige as a value (which I think is important in motivating people to write) but allows it to move to the digital realm.
Posted by: Kate | February 13, 2006 at 06:29 PM
You're exactly right, Sebastian. Far too often the decision to go with an electronic publication isn't based on audience needs but rather some idealistic goal like eliminating paper, or demonstrating technological leadership. A lot of organizations have lost an imnportant connection with their front line people that will take a long time to rebuild.
Posted by: Ron Shewchuk | February 13, 2006 at 09:55 AM
Intranet's are great ways to communicate information that can't wait for the weekly or monthly runs of a print publication, but they can't replace all the great stories that connect employees (primary audience) and their families (secondary audience) to the company.
I, too, work for an organization that has a lot of "blue collar' workers, or people who truly work for a living. I think the mistake organizations make is not giving thoughtful consideration to their audiences, primary and secondary, before they make decision to move to an elecronic publication.
Posted by: Sebastian Warren | February 13, 2006 at 09:31 AM
Ron,
I love the way you write! (Sigh... this fact seems to get lost in the noise of the blogosphere. Good writing makes good blogs... )
My focus is on CEO and senior exec blogging (both internal and external) and I'll be following your new blog with interest!
Posted by: Debbie Weil | February 10, 2006 at 02:43 PM
Eric: You're right -- some companies are so flawed that the efforts of a good employee communicator seem wasted. But I do think that, with diligence and patience, and sound principles, we can move that big rock up the hill, if only a few inches at a time.
Laura and Steve: I agree that front line people are the toughest audience, and for lots of reasons. Face to face is best, yes, but Steve points out that line managers often don't have the time or the skills to communicate well. A really well-crafted employee publication, with meaningful content, can build a loyal readership over time. But it has to actually talk about real issues, and feature front-line people, and use plain language, and be visually attractive but not too fancy, and come out like clockwork, to be effective. And the kind of trust you need can't be earned overnight. It takes time to build a loyal readership, which leads to more loyal employees.
Posted by: Ron Shewchuk | February 08, 2006 at 03:37 PM
Steve, thanks for your perspective! Very useful for me since I write the employee newsletter for a hotel chain where a huge percentage of our employee base are in jobs like front desk agent, housekeeper, restaurant server, maintenance worker, security etc.
Posted by: Laura | February 08, 2006 at 03:14 PM
Hi, Laura:
While Ron ponders his response, please allow me to stick my two cents in, for what it's worth.
I think reaching blue-collar, plant and factory workers is the hardest job in the internal communications world.
First, these people are usually the most cynical in the organization. For whatever reason, you have a lot of long-term employees who have been through, as they would call it, "all the corproate bullshit."
Second, and I think more important, they are so BUSY.
Any white collar worker who thinks he is busy needs to spend a day in the life of a factory worker, where every single minute is accounted for. These people have to run their machines. They get regimented breaks, and they aren't about to spend those breaks reading the company newsletter.
The hardest part about doing focus groups with these employees isn't even the groups themselves . . . despite how rough they can be. It's trying to line up enough participants!
"The Bosses" (and this audience is always sneering at "The Bosses") don't want to give these people up for even an hour.
I've found that the only real way to reach this particular audience is with face to face communication. We have to help the supervisors and front-line managers communicate with these folks.
Shift huddles, white board Q&As in the break rooms, e-mail newsletters that managers can use to update employees . . . it all has to be done at that level.
And that's asking a lot, because front-line supervisors usually don't get graded on communication, so it's the usually the first thing that falls off their plate.
Steve C.
Posted by: Steve Crescenzo | February 08, 2006 at 10:37 AM
Ron this is semi-off topic but maybe you might give your opinion anyway. I was reading Steve's post yesterday about printed employee communications from a blue collar perspective (http://blog.ragan.com/archives/stevesblog/2006/02/great_name_for.html#comments). Do you have any advice on how to reach a blue collar labour force through employee communications?
Posted by: Laura | February 08, 2006 at 09:32 AM
Most company intranets aren't available to families of employees, whereas the old paper newsletter could be brought home, if it contained something a spouse might want to know about the organization.
That being said, a lot of companies now chase quarterly results, meaning their commitment to their employees takes a back seat. It's not always the mirror that's cracked. Some companies have huge structural cracks in their cultural that work against employee engagement.
Posted by: Eric Eggertson | February 08, 2006 at 06:25 AM
Steve, you see a lot more Intranet sites than I do and I'll take your point. What I find disturbing is the abandonment of print alltogether at many organizations, and the adoption of technology just for the sake of being modern.
And, you're right, you can't beat online channels for timeliness, but too often we miss the opportunity to follow timely news with some interesting analysis, or a look at the people behind the news.
It's ironic that the move to Intranets was initially positioned as way of saving time and money, but now we've created this crazy, multi-channel universe that actually requires more time and resources to achieve effective communication.
Posted by: Ron Shewchuk | February 07, 2006 at 04:29 PM
Ron:
You won't find a bigger fan of print than me . . . but I think you're being a little harsh on intranets here.
Yes, if used improperly, they can become one-way, electronic dumping grounds for short little, poorly written, disjointed communication pieces.
But, used properly, they can be wonderful communication tools. No substitute for print or face to face, certainly, but wonderful tools nonetheless.
In my Master Class Seminar, I have tons of examples of how communicators at companies like Toyota, Philips, AAA, Motorola, Adidas, and others are really using the interactive nature of the web---including the social stuff elements you refer to---to do things you just can't simply do in print or with face to face communication.
And, add to that the ability to be timely with news, and it's a tool you shouldn't diss, bro.
Steve C.
Posted by: Steve Crescenzo | February 07, 2006 at 04:16 PM
Sandra, I agree. The medium is extremely limited. You can only do so much with a computer screen, at least with type and pictures.
Posted by: Ron Shewchuk | February 07, 2006 at 02:42 PM