Category Archive

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.   

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.

The folks at Dell continue to push the envelope in the area of social media and recently came out with their perspective - or manifesto of guiding principles - on supporting an increasingly mobile workforce. Check out the post here. [Full disclosure: Until several months ago, I worked at Dell in the social media team and was involved in defining and implementing the company's social media strategy.] Dell’s ideas are insightful and provide a good roadmap for any organization trying to address the ubiquity of mobile devices, digital content and peripatetic workers. Perhaps their smartest move is to look at the issue from the perspective of the end-user, rather than the IT geeks or corporate leaders.

What really hit home after reading this post is how far some companies are lagging in this race for relevance and connectivity with workers. While some companies are juggling which multimedia device or platform to use (iPhone or 3G phone?) others are simply trying to get their workforce connected to the internet…or even intranet…through clunky old computer terminals. The idea of cell phones for their workforce is still years away. There are many reasons for this digital divide - culture, cost, geography - but the biggest may simply be awareness. Keeping up with the Web 2.0 revolution is a challenge - even for IT departments - and many organizations are hard-pressed to keep updated on trends and developments, let alone try to explain them to their leaders. The saving grace of the rapid progress is that it may be possible to skip some steps in the race to get workers connected - the solution today (PDAs) may be replaced by a better one tomorrow (the next version of iPhone.) The biggest mistake, however, would be to just give up.

I’ve been watching with interest the growing debate about whether the theories behind Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point hold water. Check out this post about the polemic. I’m not sure at this point whether these new questions about the clout of so-called influentials hold water (Gladwell’s premise is that a small but highly influential group of people can spark a marketing trend more quickly and effectively than traditional mass advertising techniques) but it raises some interesting questions. For one thing, what are those of us working in employee communications to do? There’s long been an attempt to identify and harness those employees who may be highly influential in driving messages or themes across the organization, but I’ve never seen a clear cut case of how we’re supposed to identify them in the first place - let alone get them on board. This latest controversy suggests our efforts may have been misplaced, since those few movers and shakers (however we define them) may not have as much pull as we thought. Furthermore, they may change depending on the issue or campaign…making idenfication and mobilizing even more challenging. One lesson I think still holds water is that influence has little to do with formal roles or seniority. Like in the online world, credibility and influence is a nebulous and fragile thing that must be earned.

OK. I’m sitting here in a quaint coffee-shop a few minutes from Harvard Square in Cambridge this morning minding my own business - and with no intention of thinking of anything as complex or profound as employee engagement - but I can’t help myself. The trigger was this short but cogent post by David Ferrabee of Hill & Knowlton’s Change & Employee Engagement team. I agree with David’s points and think he hits the nail on the head with the obvious answer - do whatever you can to get and keep people who love their work…who believe they have a real purpose and impact. All the other criteria - distinctive culture, core values, two-way communication, progressive HR policies -they all matter, but not as much.

One of the most striking illustrations of this argument I’ve seen in my career occured at Amazon.com. My agency did a consulting gig with them a few years back during some pro-union rumblings and I remember thinking that though they worked in a typically cool, caffeinated Seattle environment (a renovated old hospital) their workplace was anything but easy or comfortable. In fact, they worked like dogs in what seemed like constant chaos, cell phones going off every minute and employees literally jogging from one meeting to the next. But they seemed to love it. Why? Not the funky cafeteria, or the brick walls or even their dynamic leader Jeff Bezos and his incredible laugh - though those all mattered - but because they believe they were creating something special…making retail history. And years later they were proven right.
Companies trying to find the magic potion for engagement should certainly try to do all the obvious things to make their workplace a positive, nurturing and productive place to work… but the real pay-off will come when they are able to generate real passion among their employees. Easier said than done.

OK, this post really isn’t about PR. But it is about how Web 2.0 technology and values are getting traction well beyond the fields of marketing and communications - the ostensible focus of this little blog. Witness the agenda of the upcoming World Economic Forum in Davos, as outlined in this BusinessWeek article: collaborative innovation. Sound familiar? None other than  Wikinomics guru Don Wapscott will regale the world’s intelligentsia and moguls about topics like collaborative marketing and radical transparency. So if the global business elite can discuss this, why is it still so hard to get through the door at your friendly company around the corner?  

A recent post by David Armano on the increasing mobility of digital content convincingly captures the trend towards digital freedom, allowing us to access (or send) content anywhere, anytime and through an expanding range of tools. Still, even as Web access becomes more ubiquitous and portable through the expansion of access points (free wi-fi), portable devices (3-G phones) and evolving cultural norms (virtual workers) there is a stubborn gap in digital mobility - particularly across corporations. While one company arms its workers with the latest Blackberry or multi-purpose cameras and essentially obviates the need for permanent offices, others struggle to provide wireless access to their workers in their own facilities…and wouldn’t dream of providing mobile devices to anybody beyond their top executives. And that’s just in the larger cities of North America.

Though a part of this lag is likely due to the economics of obtaining and implementing new technology, I suspect the larger reason is cultural. Companies sticking closer to the chained-to-the-desk, firewall mentality seem more concerned about what employees will do with their new-found freedom than about costs. We’ve all heard the typical concerns:

- “What if employees start leaking information… or surfing bad sites?”

- “Won’t some employees  say bad things about the company?”

- “What if they spend all their time going to Facebook or YouTube?”

 These concerns reflect a paranoia which is misplaced, and also a touch of executive arrogance. Trying to stall technology to keep workers in line totally misses the point of the huge advantages inherent in the new mobile technology, and of the futility of trying to bury or avoid digital conversations. What these companies need is not a new CIO, but a cultural overhaul.

With all the buzz about the latest hot topics related to employee engagement - namely how to leverage social media tools with internal audiences - one fundamental requirement for effective employee communications is often forgotten: the need for alignment across all “touch points” that reach employees. My friend David Kippen, who specializes in employment brand strategy at TMP Worldwide, discussed this point at a recent Conference Board workshop…talking about how various iterations of the company’s positioning as an employer was too often inconsistent, and even contradictory.

Thinking about my own career, I can think of several instances where the external employment (or recruitment) brand was totally different from my interviewing experience, and even more so from the initial orientation and on-boarding. So either the corporate brand was misrepresented, or it was not effectively conveyed to prospects and/or hew hires. And that doesn’t even touch on the messages and positioning that are shared with established employees - which are too often aspirational cheer-leading rather than a reflection of reality or cogent strategy. Furthermore, the actual work experience (an ocean of cubicles?) and HR programs (such as benefits or performance evaluations) sometimes don’t jibe with the company’s stated identity or culture. Add in typically woeful efforts to reach out to alumni, who are potential recruits and brand ambassadors, and you have a very disjointed employee experience. And we wonder why most employee campaigns are met with skepticism and are dead on arrival. Needless to say, it’s difficult if not impossible to have a clear, compelling external image as an employer if the situation is as sclerotic as described above.

Enlightened companies should put much more effort into defining and promoting a consistent brand positioning with prospects, new hires, employees and alumni. This will by necessity need to involve folks from various teams and agencies, and it may take some hard work to define the employment brand - both real and desired. But it’s work well worth doing. Otherwise, employees and prospects will continue to view corporate positioning efforts with cynicism and scorn.

One of the most interesting lessons from the Citibank debacle and recent firing of CEO Charles Prince is the importance of culture as a make-or-break factor in business success. As noted in this WSJ cover story, Prince and his leadership team were never able to unite the disparate fiefdoms in the sprawling Citibank empire, and as a result could not hope to achieve the strategic goal of providing a one-stop shop of financial services. The article mentions defiant Citigroup bond traders still answering their phones as “Salomon” years after the brand was ostensibly retired, and also highlights the dysfunctional and even antagonistic relationship between the various business segments and brands. It’s interesting to note that Citi apparently put considerable energy behind an internal branding campaign promoting “One Citi”, but as in many similar exercises this apparently was more an empty (and aspirational) slogan than a robust, change management effort. By all accounts there was no such thing as a coherent Citi culture, so there was nothing cultivated to replace the various cultures left over from the Travellers & Citibank merger. Companies that seek to promote a unified culture need to remember a few golden rules:

- You can’t artifically create a culture out of a vacuum, but should rather build on existing norms and values

- Employees need an incentive to embrace or support a culture, with clear “benefits of membership” rather than just platitudes

- Talk and slogans are often not enough to encourage alignment and drive cultural change - usually the effort must include personal incentives (or “sticks”) to change behaviors, structural and strategic adjustments, new orientation and training programs, and so on

- Much like consumers shape the external brand through their perceptions and opinions, employees ultimately own the corporate identity

The ultimate lesson is that any CEO trying to impose or promote a culture without considerable due diligence and follow-through is doomed to failure. Yet another reminder that a strategy is nothing without people.

The attached article in BusinessWeek on Intel’s office redesign program reminded me that a workplace’s design and layout is too often the forgotten aspect of employee engagement strategies. As much as benefits, compensation, training and managers matter to job satisfaction, perhaps nothing has as much of a sustained impact on worker psychology and productivity as their office environment.  It’s one thing to have to make a living in the gulag-like drab, grey cubicles. But even worse, in too many cases (some of which I’ve experienced myself) the working environment is woefully misaligned with the prevailing office culture or company aspirations. So you end up with uninspired employees who do their job in spite of their office environment. You want some examples?

• A company promoting creativity and innovation that has not a hint of color and whimsy in the office
• An organization where frequent collaboration and multiple meetings are the norm with a chronic shortage of meeting rooms and no central areas
• A company where laptops are ubiquitous with no wireless wi-fi or ethernet cables
• An office where small teams are the creative force but where individuals are isolated in high cubicles scattered across the building
• An organization promoting outside-in thinking and consumer insights that has firewalls so tight the outside world is virtually inaccessible

One of the excuses I have heard is that it costs money to “dress up” an office. But it’s not about perks, and much can be done without any incremental cost (how about green instead of grey?) It just makes business sense. Companies that want productive, efficient and loyal employees need to invest in the right working environment if they hope to be attract and keep their talent. At minimum, they need to ensure that their office is consistent with - and supportive of - their culture and strategic objectives.  Not everybody needs a basketball court in the lobby or free food in the cafeteria, but give me the tools and space I need to do my job properly and…just maybe…get some enjoyment out of it.

It’s been interesting to follow the ongoing dust-up between companies banning use of Facebook (and other social networking sites) and web advocates saying the practice is outdated and irrational. Shel Holtz has a great post that questions statistics suggesting Americans waste countless hours (and billions of dollars) surfing the net while at work. A recent U.N. report claiming Americans work longer and produce more capital per person than any other country would seem to back Shel’s argument.

But the issue of banning Facebook or other sites is a symptom of a bigger problem - organizations that still equate the internet (particularly social network or video sites) with “personal” use or fun. Based on my personal experience, I don’t buy it. At work, I constantly go back and forth between my company site and external tools - including Linked-in, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and a long list of favorite blogs and aggregators. Much of what I do on these sites can be considered productive, whether it be doing research, catching up on news or posts, chatting with ”friends” about new products or best practices or viewing viral videos. There is no clear delineation for me - and probably for many others - between internal and external tools or programs. With Linked-In and Facebook in particular, I use the networks to keep up with an expanding range of contacts to share tips, answer questions and generally ”network” - much as folks have done over a beer or on the golf course for years.  And to Shel’s point, even if some of my time online is not directly useful for work - I have to admit some of the surfing is pure fun - I’m sure to catch up later. It’s about doing the work, not doing it between 9 and 5. Companies that install firewalls to prevent access to social websites are keeping their employees from accessing a treasure trove of information, connecting with peers and taking part in the online conversation. I just don’t see how that is productive.

This week USA Today had a cover story on the striking lack of civility and vitriolic commentaries that populate the Web. This is not a new story, but it gained well-deserved attention when Kathy Sierra shut down her blog (and speaking engagements) in the face of anonymous threats and vicious insults on her popular blog. The issue has also gained prominence due to angst about the prevalence of sexual predators on social networks like MySpace. I think the debate is good because it forces all of us on the Web to help define a collective code of conduct. What are the rules of the Web, if any? For what it’s worth, here is my take on this issue:

- I love the free-wheeling atmosphere of the Web, but that doesn’t mean anything goes. Just like in real world conversation, pointless insults or more dangerous threats and attacks should be prevented or removed. Most online users seem to agree that reasonable rules of conduct do not infringe on healthy debate and don’t constitute unnecessary censorship.

- Anonymous comments should be banned altogether. Most of the nonsense on the Net is left by anonymous users - it’s far too easy to write senseless online rants when you don’t share your identity and can’t be tracked. Also, not attributing comments  goes against at least two of the central tenets of internet etiquette, namely transparency and attribution.

- Websites and bloggers should be able to define whatever rules they want for their sites - as many have - without incurring shrill cries of censorship. That said, they should also make those rules very clear to users and make every effort to consider the views and preferences of their users (or community) when drafting those rules. If users don’t like the rules, they don’t have to visit the site. That’s called freedom of choice.

The USA Today suggests that the level of bile on the Web can partly be attributed to the increasing lack of civility in Western society, along with the fact that it’s just so damn easy to leave rude comments on the internet. These may be accurate assumptions, but either way I still have faith that the collective wisdom of the “crowd” on the internet will help define reasonable norms that most users will follow and promote. To me the issue is not just freedom of speech - which despite some limits seems alive and well on the internet - but that the parameters of freedom are largely being defined by the global online community.