Workforce 2.0 Still Work in Progress

Judging by what I’m seeing and reading, an increasing number of companies are considering how they should leverage social media to communicate with their customers,  influential journalists or even critics. Many are engaged in outreach programs using some of the available applications and tools. But surprisingly fewer companies seem to be applying the same diligence and effort to their internal audiences beyond ensuring their employees are somehow informed or involved – in some capacity – with their external programs.

A cursory look at the available research and some case studies provides some hints on the reasons for this ambivalence.  A Watson Wyatt report suggests social media can improve internal communication and employee engagement…but also confirms many companies focus on potential risks and inhibit access to tools. A survey by Avanade (a global IT consulting firm) found more than half of the 500 top executives surveyed resist the adoption of social media out of fear it would sap worker productivity. A survey by IABC/Buck found 4/5 of respondents use social media frequently to drive productivity & engage employees – but 56% of executives are not using social media.

There is ample anecdotal and empirical evidence, however, that supports the premise that providing a robust forum for internal dialogue and collaboration should pay rich dividends for organizations and drive employee engagement. MIT research shows 40% of creative teams’ productivity is directly explained by the amount of communication they have with others to discover, gather, and internalize information. Other MIT research shows employees with the most extensive digital networks are 7% more productive than their colleagues, and those with the most cohesive face-to-face networks are 30% more productive.

With this background, I would make the following arguments:

1.The best social media strategy is proactively integrated across audiences, objectives and platforms

2.Your internal audience should not be an add-on – your employees are potentially your biggest fans & best advocates…or biggest critics

3.Every company should provide a robust forum for employee conversation & collaboration

I would further advocate that all companies should strive to develop their own Workforce 2.0 culture – defined as an organization shares information/content freely – allowing employees to help create and share content – and provides employees with platforms/tools to engage in candid conversation, work together, solve problems and contribute to the evolution and success of the organization. This 2.0 culture entails four key attributes – transparency, trust, empowerment and innovation. Perhaps it is these philosophical and cultural requirements that are the stumbling block for many companies, rather than technology or myopia.

I’m certainly not suggesting that all companies should follow the same social media strategy or dive in without careful diligence and planning. The formula need not be complex or expensive, but it should be smart and driven by business objectives. But organizations that don’t address this issue are missing a huge opportunity…and risk becoming increasingly irrelevant in the marketplace.

Why are So Many So Bad at PR?

Over the past year or so, there’s been no shortage of examples of companies (and their leaders) showing an incredible propensity to stumble into media scandals or PR fiascoes. Let’s start with the Big 3 U.S. automakers going to Washington to beg for money in private jets and with their nascent rescue plans written on the back of a napkin. Or AIG stubbornly going ahead with lavish training or recognition trips as if they were flying high and the economy was humming. Or leaders of humbled (if not bankrupt) investment banks arguing for their typical million-dollar bonuses.

How could this happen, one might ask. These executives are presumably very smart people. These companies likely have large PR staffs that monitor the media and political winds. How could they not have anticipated and prepared for these events when it was so obvious to most observers their actions were ill-advised and smacked of delusion and hubris? I chalk it down to three critical flaws – call it my “axis of PR evil”.

• Insularity – Though it seems unbelievable that a company (or culture) can become detached in this 24-hour, multi-media, mobile Web environment, it would appear some of these protagonists either ignore, dismiss or don’t comprehend what is happening outside their doors. That is more likely in a cultural environment that beats the drum loudly and limits candid dialogue and external input. In other words, they drink a lot of cool-aid and listen to themselves rather than outsiders.
• Arrogance – A good way to get into trouble is to start believing you’re smarter than everybody else. Or don’t have to follow the same rules. Or deserve a better fate (and paycheck) than mere mortals. I don’t personally know any of the executives embroiled in the scandals I’ve listed above, but they all appear to have very healthy egos – even as their companies crumble around them and they go hat in hand to Washington. That may be good for their self-esteem, but good leaders need the humility and self-awareness to recognize mistakes and accept good advice. With these folks as leaders, arrogance can easily become a cultural virus spreading across an organization. It all adds up to a toxic mix.
• Greed – It’s clear that a common thread in many of the recent  PR scandals is the most basic of human flaws – some people like to make as much money as they can…sometimes much more than they deserve or is legal. Nothing new here, perhaps, except for the brazen, delusional extent of the greed as the economy crumbled around them.

What’s the lesson for PR professionals? Be the voice of reason in spite of intense pressure to conform or be silent. Help to break through the insularity and arrogance. Bring the outside in. And never drink the cool-aid…or at least, too much cool-aid. If all of these efforts fail on a consistent basis, it may be time to reevaluate whether you should stay in your job.

Defining a Relevant Vision…Not Just a Business Goal

In the past few weeks, I’ve been involved in wide-ranging discussions about developing a vision for a company. Usually, this process is slow and painful, largely due to lingering confusion about the differences between a mission (what you do and how you do it) and vision (where you want to go…who you want to become). No, this time the sticking  point is on how broad the vision should be.

At the outset of these discussions, somebody proposed a vision statement that was heavily focused on business goals. The formula: If we make X, our objective is to make and sell more X to more people by doing Y.  I realize some companies use financial targets as aspirational goals – I’ve been in a few of them - but I’ve always found these to be ephemeral and shallow as vision statements; they seem to imply that making even more money is the beginning and end of any vision and good enough reason for me to stay with the company. I think this narrow perspective misses the point that companies are more than just an organization for selling goods and making money. Companies are members of the community. They are (potentially) forces of social and economic change. They are home to employees and guardians of a distinctive culture and workplace environment.  In that context, developing a true corporate vision requires a holistic perspective that defines the company not just as a business entity or provider or products and services, but also as a corporate citizen and employer. Companies striving to appeal to the intellect and emotion of employees – and customers – are likely to get more traction from this well-rounded approach.

Counting Work not Hours

One of the ongoing mysteries of modern business for me is the reluctance of American corporate leaders – particularly in Human Resources – to fully embrace the management credo that focuses on work output rather than hours worked (the old “butt in the seat” mentality.) This movement has picked up speed as technology expands the opportunity to do work and stay connected pretty well anywhere in the world. I’ve had the good fortune to work at organizations at various places on this continuum,  ranging from total autonomy (a truly mobile, virtual office environment) to a much more regimented office environment…where the hours when you arrive and leave are seen as a litmus test of dedication and productivity. Unfortunately, the latter is more the norm, particularly in the corporate environment. (I recall one job where leaving before 8 pm was seen as such an affront that colleagues would avert their eyes to avoid any semblance of silent collaboration with my “early” departure.) Agencies and consulting firms can also demand long hours, but they tend to be based more on business and client requirements and staff are typically given much more autonomy to decide where, when and how to complete their work.

The authors quoted in this recent BusinessWeek article suggest that the problem is not just an executive aversion to risk, but an outdated and unfounded logic based on the false premise that hours worked equal productivity. That argument has been so thoroughly debunked by many companies (Cisco, Best Buy and REI come to mind) you’d think resistance would be eroding. Yet, many leaders and board members continue to look askance at any suggestion that the traditional 9-to-5 model be changed. I think another factor is that deep down, many managers still do not trust their employees to do the right thing and do their jobs. I would argue that assumption is equally questionable – and the problem is not the working environment or rules but the lack of commitment and productivity of the individual employee. The problem is the person, not the rulebook.

True, not every company, job or person are well suited to an autonomous, flexible model. There are important considerations when dealing with a blue-collar workforce, for example, and some jobs require on-the-job presence, but for many positions the work can be done just as well from home, the road or even the beach or coffeeshop – whether in groups or solo. And even for manufacturing gigs, there is room to give staff more freedom to decide their routine and hours…as long as the production stays on track. In an age where there are increasing productivity expectations on workers, and where work demands continue to encroach into personal time, it’s neither fair nor realistic to for companies to demand flexibility from employees without affording them the same commitment in return.

Managing Change – First…Answer the Obvious Questions

Few topics have generated more articles, books or consulting dollars than the topic of change management. It’s one of those labels that seems to carry gravitas, and it’s loosely used across a range of situations – many of which have nothing to do with managing change.

In recent weeks, I’ve been involved in several discussions with peers and colleagues about how to manage and direct change in an organization. My experience is that while there is often consensus and even excitement among leaders (and consultants) about the need for change, and usually a favored approach by one guru or another, there is rarely enough thought given to confirming the purpose and implications of said change. In short, why do we need to change? And why and how is this change different from the routine that occurs in most companies every day?
With that in mind, I developed a short checklist that has served me well when this topic comes up. Consider it a due diligence template for communication professionals.

·         Burning Platform or Opportunity– The best impetus for change is when there is a crisis, such as a critical downturn in the business, leadership change or a dramatic competitive shift. But in some cases organizations feel compelled to change despite satisfactory performance, perhaps to boost performance or gain competitive advantage. Either way, leaders need to define a platform - burning or visionary - that will compel employees to consider dramatic shifts in their behavior or performance. Making a case for change when the situation is relatively positive and promising, in my experience, is a more challenging proposition. Defining a compelling vision or goal is not as easy as it sounds; the call to action must be relevant and credible – which eliminates most self-serving and trite corporate slogans. It involves defining the desired future state, what “better” or even “excellent” looks like. How big and successful will we be? How will our competitive position change? How will our organization change? All these elements have to be defined to a certain extent for employees to get on board. In short, you need a clear destination…not just a roadmap.

·         Focus on the rationale – Building on the point above, one of the critical drivers to employee acceptance of any change message is the underlying rationale…why do we need to change? Why now? Why this way? What are the fundamental reasons for the new direction or strategy? The logic and credibility of this core argument will determine the success of the change effort. Sounds obvious, but many organizations  do not get past this point. Their case is muddled or lacks traction. As a result, the effort falls on deaf ears.

·         What’s in it for me? – One of the critical elements required in any change communication effort is a clear indication of how employees across all regions and levels will benefit from the change. How do they win if the company wins? These benefits can be intangible (pride of global leadership, external recognition) or more practical (increased opportunity for career advancement, financial gains, increased security) but they need to be addressed prominently in the outreach. It won’t be good enough to demonstrate how the change is good for the company – we need to make the link between company gains and personal benefits.

·         What will not change? – With talk of change, most employees will be very interested in confirming what won’t be changing, particularly with regard to their daily jobs and more esoteric issues like culture. Will there be change to the core values, for example, or compensation strategy. If that’s the case, that needs to be emphasized in the communication effort. Confirming these surviving pillars – whatever they are — will provide some sense of continuity and security to employees.  

·         Dialogue vs. push – It’s particularly important during broad-scale change efforts to go beyond basic “push” communication tactics to fully engage employees in the topic and drive understanding and support. The communication effort should engage the employees in the change process through discussion and participation where appropriate, rather than just as recipients of the messages.  If the old adage is you cannot over-communicate during times of change, I would adapt that to add you also can’t listen too much. It will also be critical to engage managers as active participants in the communication process.

• Consider integrated communication campaign– Many companies leverage broad, multi-year internal marketing campaigns to direct and support change. This helps package a complex set of messages into a compelling, logical thematic framework that can appeal to employees. A well crafted campaign can also help to address the points above – for example defining the vision but also reinforcing the “how” or culture – through engaging collateral and messaging.

·         Integrate internal and external messages – Whatever organizations do around change communication, they need to ensure their directives and messages are consistent across audiences, particularly related to marketing messages. Not everything communicated internally needs to be shared or identical to external messages (for example internal messages exhorting additional effort may not be relevant or appropriate for customers) but they need to be aligned and based on a common platform.

• Engage Hearts and Minds – While it’s critical to have solid empirical evidence to back the call for change, too often leaders assume facts alone will sway the organization. To increase chances of success, communicators should ensure their change program appeals to the emotions of their employees. That can be done through the messaging, packaging and tactical plan. The best change programs have an almost visceral, personal element. 

• Devil in the Details – As with any organizational directive, employees must understand how they need to do their jobs…how they have to change. A critical element of any change program is clearly defining what employees at all levels and roles need to do differently – whether it’s behavior or process. If the scope of change is massive, the company will likely need to engage in substantial training and briefing programs.

 

Gas Prices Driving Shift in the Workplace

There’s been plenty of media coverage and discussion lately on how companies are reacting to recent economic challenges – including skyrocketing gas prices and tumbling profits. My former colleague Keith Burton of Insidedge, a firm that specializes in internal communications and change management, suggests in this post that high gas prices, coupled with the advent of new technology, may be driving fundamental changes in the workplace. One example: the introduction of the four-day workweek, along with a major push towards telecommuting and transient workers – tethered by the Web rather than a desk.

I agree with Keith that what we’re seeing is not a temporary adjustment, but the advent of a new trend towards more flexible, decentralized corporate environments that rely more on technology and social media tools for productivity than physical offices and mandated working hours. With the new economics of global travel, it’s possible the days of the archetypal “road warrior” are gone for good. Though the jury is still out on how these changes will impact productivity and morale, I think it will be positive. The autonomy inherent in the new model affirms a higher level of trust and accountability for workers, and that should ultimately drive employee engagement – particularly with the new generation of workers joining the ranks. They expect nothing less from their employers.

Using Social Media to Spark Innovation

Read this interesting article in Fortune recently about a small company that introduced Facebook within the firewalls to help spark innovation and culture change. What struck me was that the most important impact was not the superficial results – a few new products created via collaboration – but the huge symbolic value (what the article calls the “subsersive message”) of introducing such a new tool in the company’s ecosystem. The message: be prepared to learn and change to survive.

I have found a parallel situation in several companies – including my own – where the introduction of social media tools and channels is the trojan horse for changes well beyond the mechanics of communication. These tools typically force companies to stretch well beyond their previous habits and to embrace new ideas, not just new technology.

As I’ve said before, social media is not for every company. But every company can benefit from the process of liberation and intellectual overhaul that is often sparked by the new technology.

Informing Employees – How Much is Too Much?

I’ve been having discussions with peers lately on the right mix of information leaders should share with their employees – notably during employee meetings (virtual or face-to-face.) The dialogue was spurred by a recent meeting that featured leaders sharing a range of timely information with the troops: financial updates, progress reports on major programs, an update on the economy…news good and bad was shared and potential elephants in the room (e.g. likelihood of layoffs) were proactively addressed. The format was a blend of slide presentations, informal interplay between presentors and robust Q&A. In short, the meeting was relevant, candid, transparent and reflected – I thought – a real commitment to dialogue and respect for the employees. The content was much more timely and frank than I’ve heard in many company meetings, which are too often highly choreographed affairs with a lot of fluff and contrived cheerleading and not enough facts or honest discussion.

But here’s the catch. Some of the comments from participants at this meeting were negative, with complaints about the complexity of the information, the length of the meeting and the lack of softer, social news.

In the soul-searching that ensued, there was consensus that leaders should always consider the concerns, demographics and interests of their audience – the employees. Most also agreed you needed to blend the hard news with more “human” material focusing on employees and culture. And nobody argued with the reality that presentations and topics should be customized for particular levels and roles. But there was disagreement about whether all employees should be briefed on the nuts and bolts of the business and market, or updated on the financial performance of the company. Won’t this go over the heads of the front-line folks? Do we really need to talk about earnings or stock value? Won’t the employees be bored? Why can’t we focus more on picnics and awards?

From my perspective there is an undercurrent of arrogance and elitism in the argument that employees won’t understand – or can’t be trusted with – the straight goods. I believe employees deserve to be educated and briefed about their company on a regular basis, and that leaders should make two-way communication a personal priority. But it’s two-way street. Just as executives need to be forthright, relevant and responsive, employees have a responsibility – no matter what their level – to have a base level of understanding about their company. If they get restless and squirm for a couple of hours every quarter or so when the CFO’s going over the numbers, that’s a small price to pay for having the chance to hear valuable information and question their leaders in person. Getting valuable information about the company is a hard-fought priviledge that shouldn’t be wasted.

Why is Internal Branding a Tough Sell?

This recent account of Korn/Ferry’s rebranding efforts – which seem to be thoughtful and totally integrated across internal and external audiences – raises the question of why something so fundamental and logical as internal branding campaigns seem such a tough sell in many companies. Indeed, while many executives embrace the marketing principles behind the idea of promoting and celebrating a distinctive brand identity to customers, they often balk at applying the same logic with their own workforce. Why do we need to talk about our brand with employees? Don’t they already know who we are? Does this really help drive the business? Isn’t this just empty cheerleading? And what is the ROI of any internal brand campaign?

These are all appropriate questions, but they ignore the reality that ensuring employees understand, accept and deliver the brand promise is critical to a company’s success. And this is true whether the company sells directly to consumers or is more of a B2B operation. At the basic level, employees need to know what they must to do to deliver on the brand promise. Even better if they actually want to do their jobs well. On a higher level – perhaps harder to articulate and quantify - employees need to “live” the values and personality inherent in the brand. Ultimately, they have to be advocates of the brand across both personal and professional situations. None of this happens through osmosis or simply reheating marketing materials intended for customers.

All makes sense, right? So why is it so difficult to secure the funds for internal campaigns designed to educate employees about the brand and corporate identity, illustrate the brand attributes through examples or best practices or even celebrate the brand to generate enthusiasm and discretionary effort? It may be that executives are looking at all activities that fall under the umbrella of marketing and advertising – whether internal or external - with a more skeptical and cautious perspective these days. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing, given the dubious track record and flawed logic of many marketing mantras (e.g. Super Bowl commercials are worth the cost.) Or it may be that in difficult economic times anything beyond basic communication about the nuts and bolts of the business seems superfluous.

Whatever the reasons, executives who ignore the internal profile and resonance of their brand do so at their own peril. Employees want to know who they work for and what their company stands for – not just how to do their job. And most employees want to feel proud about their company’s distinctive heritage, achievements and/or identity.   

Managing Mergers from the Inside

Throughout the Microsoft-Yahoo merger dance, it’s been fascinating to try and detect how these companies were managing their internal communication strategy. There have been tantalizing hints provided through leaked memos and insider comments.

Yahoo appears to be doing things right – at least judging from this initial memo to employees (assuming it’s legitimate.) That means treating your employees like a critical audience on par with potential partners and sharholders and making sure they are informed and supportive of your position. Given the sorry track record of mergers and acquisitions – many of which are derailed due to cultural factors and lack of employee support – this would seem like a prerequisite.  The messages of Yahoo’s leadership team – pushing alternatives to Microsoft, appealing to cultural pride and suggesting Yahoo still has a promising outlook and sound strategy – are likely to be resonant among its employees. Despite Yahoo’s well documented troubles with Wall Street, it appears Yahoo employees appreciate their working environment and want to safeguard their culture.

Microsoft, on the other hand, may be fighting an uphill battle trying to convince its own workforce that the deal is worth fighting for. According to several reports, including this one and a recent expose in the Wall Street Journal (can’t read this one unless you have a subscription) there is strong opposition within Microsoft and employees are unhappy internal updates have dried up since the initial announcement. It’s difficult to tell whether this will be a critical factor in Ballmer’s decision making, but it should be.

Whether or not these insider accounts are accurate I don’t know. But the lesson here is that companies would be wise to treat their employees as a critical audience before, during and after any merger process. Is pre-merger employee anxiety to be expected? Do companies sometimes have to make tough decisions that entail difficult change in order to sustain their growth? Is dramatic change always a difficult sell? Yes, yes and yes. But executives shouldn’t ignore the comments and questions of their employees, who are often well positioned to understand the potential gains and pitfalls of any merger or acquisition. After all, they are the ones who have to make it happen.