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.

Unions Jumping on New Media Bandwagon

An article in the Los Angeles Times last week provided a good summary of union campaign tactics being used against Starbucks – apparently now a close second to WalMart as the favorite target of union organizers. The gist of the article is that unions are increasingly leveraging “new media” tactics to spread the word and gain traction for their organizing campaigns – with the central premise that the inherent communication benefits of social media (low cost, huge reach, networking and multi-media capability) is providing a boost to these programs. Examples of new media tactics in the Starbuck’s program include worker videos posted on a website, a guerrilla “hijacking” of a Twitter program and an on-line petition.

Despite the focus on social media, I don’t think these campaigns will be any more successful than previous ones just because of the Web 2.0 tactics. For one thing, authenticity and credibility are paramount in social media programs, and these efforts are clearly biased and polarized. Even the union organizers behind the campaign agree the ultimate intent is to promote the potential EFCA legislation, and attack critics like Starbucks. Even though these networking/viral efforts may theoretically “spread the word” – to use the language of the union organizers – I doubt they will engage many beyond the core supporters or interested pundits. For one thing, Starbucks is no rookie when it comes to social media and PR and has aggressively responded on the Web and on proprietary sites as well as traditional media. So this continues to be a “he said, she said” battle, with each side trying to promote it’s position and leverage the networking ability of social media. Yes, there are Starbuck’s employees featured in the campaign who are critical of management and pushing for union representation, but that’s not new and doesn’t seem to represent a widespread trend.

This campaign sounds to me like similarly clumsy attempts by some PR and advertising firms to generate “buzz” by releasing “viral videos” on YouTube. I have no reason to believe it will spark any more public support or tangible policy change than previous efforts in traditional PR. Campaigns like this only generate genuine interest and momentum when they are legitimate grass-roots efforts that touch a nerve with a large community of consumers – like the infamous “Comcast must Die” website, which recently shutdown in the wake of apologies and concessions from Comcast. Otherwise, they are little more than manufactured “astroturf” campaigns destined to generate limited attention and change.

Wells Fargo Campaign Shows Good Offense is Not Always a Good Defense

Major American banks continue to demonstrate they haven’t learned the lessons of their recent  PR debacles. Wells Fargo recently took out full-page ads in several major U.S. newspapers announcing they had reluctantly cancelled employee recognition events, but they also defended the practice and blamed the news media for misleading coverage on the issue. Check out a story on the ads here.

The ads created predictable churn on the Web and among pundits. I found this commentary by CNN’s Campbell Brown to pretty close to my view on the topic – Brown gives Wells Fargo the chutzpah award for a strong and spirited counter-attack, but argues the tactic ultimately fails and suggests the bank would be better served spending funds on their employees rather than expensive ads attacking the media. Wells CEO John Stumpf should certainly be commended for wanting to recognize his employees and giving them a public high-five in the ads, but his comments also reflect the hubris and insularity that has generated so much vitriol among critics of the banks. Notwithstanding the merits of employee recognition, this is not the time nor the channel to argue for costly trips.  Would it not have been simpler to simply introduce alternate recognition tactics? I know of several companies who have eliminated recognition trips and meetings and replaced them with other rewards, with apparent understanding from their employees. A Wells spokesperson claims that in addition to setting the record straight on the trips, the ads were intended to publicly acknowledge the accomplishments of employees. Even if you believe that, it might have been more effective to use the cost of placing the ads directly on employee rewards.

The Most Important Question in Public Relations

Every once in a while it hits me. More than ever, there is huge momentum to communicate. Executives, bloggers, marketing executives, pundits…and they want to communicate internally, with consumers, with and through media outlets, to influentials…you name it. This malady is particularly visible in employee communication efforts, where adherence to the mantra that you can’t communicate too much in times of crisis has fostered a blizzard of activity. I suppose this is a good instinct, and it certainly bodes well for those of us working in communications across all these audiences. But I’m concerned that besides a great desire to communicate, there is much less clarity as to purpose. We need to go back to the first and most important question in communication – why?

In the majority of cases where there is demand to get out message out, raise our brand profile or become part of the conversation, I detect little beyond an inexplicable and fierce appetite for action. Let’sstart a blog. Shouldn’t we put out a press release? Can you help us promote this with employees?  But if you scratch the surface it’s often unclear exactly what these well intentioned folks want to achieve beyond vague aspirations of visibility or being able to check off “communications” on their project roadmap.  Are you trying to sell more product? Is this designed merely to inform or drive substantive changes in behavior? Who is the target audience? In short…why are you doing this? In some cases – when there is no clear imperative or desired outcome – the communication plans should be shelved altogether.

Given this context, one of the most useful roles communication professionals can play with clients and peers is due diligence – going through a logical planning process to confirm objectives, audiences and communication opportunities. Sounds very prosaic, but without that simple checklist the communication effort will likely do little more than add to the ambient noise. It’s time we add “confirm rationale” as first item on the planning checklist for PR activities.

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.

Learning to Listen

A recent post on PR Squared on the difference between “active” and “actionable” listening has some valuable lessons for PR professionals. Though the post focuses on the merits of listening to the blogosphere - and taking tangible actions in response to the input - the same logic applies to PR teams and executives struggling to listen to their employees. Much like on the external side of the house, too many companies still do a paltry or half-hearted job of listening to their employees. I’m not talking about the all-but-required annual survey – which often sits on the shelf gathering  dust balls soon after it’s completed - but having channels and mechanisms in place to track and process informal and formal employee feedback. Organizations who take this information and actually respond - through answers or actions – are even more rare. A select few even go to the extent of using crowd-sourcing, using their employees to guide their product development or strategic direction. 

Actionable listening, as PR Squared calls it, takes effort and commitment. Indeed, listening is an art that takes time to acquire. It starts with a leap of faith that listening to employees does not mean – despite the fears of some executives – that leaders have to agree with everything their staff say or do everything they want. But it does mean you have to take the input seriously and be genuinely open to taking  action in response to the information. Otherwise, the conversation will die on the vine.

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.

 

Can Employees Handle the Truth?

“You can’t handle the truth!”. Many of us remember that famous line shouted so eloquently by Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. In recent weeks I’ve had several discussions with peers and colleagues that ask whether this quote is accurate when it comes to sharing information with employees. One example: sharing the results of an employee survey.

Here is the scenario. Assume you have just conducted an annual global survey of employees for a global company. The workforce is slightly cynical about the process due to uneven communication and lack of visible follow-up during previous surveys.  Sharing the highlights of the results – and focusing on driving tangible changes based on the findings – is a given. So is using all relevant communication channels, including regional and local managers, to cascade the information. But here’s where it gets less certain. Would you make most the data available to all employees, to peruse or compare at their leisure? Should you allow them to review customized reports with breakdowns by country, function or role? Would all this result in information overload and competitive sniping or foster a new sense of transparency and trust?

Here’s where we came down on this issue. Given the latent cynicism of employees regarding surveys in particular (and management in general) the default should always be to share information – or at least make it available – unless there is a good reason not to. In the case of surveys, one could reasonably argue the information is better presented with the proper context and with the right level of detail and local customization. It also helps to have key leaders take a personal role in the communication process to emphasize their personal interest and accountability. But it also sends an important message if in addition to the proactive communication process the company allows any employee to access relevant data or reports (for example on a dedicated website.)

There should be limits to this transparency, however. The obvious one is to protect the confidentiality of respondents and not present detailed data that allows close comparisons beyond (or really below) the major functions or regions, since that might create dissension and/or invite criticisms of specific teams or managers. The other is to ensure employees understand the information is confidential and not for external distribution. But beyond that the onus should be on opening the windows, so to speak.

Many discussions involving the issue of transparency with employees implicitly suggest most employees are not capable of fully understanding information unless it’s fully “digested” for them, or not responsible enough to have access to the data – with the inference they will use it to attack managers, foster dissension or even leak the information. The inference is usually based on the employees’ level and job function (white collar is ok, blue collar is not.) Though there will always be bad apples in any company, in my 20 years of experience I’ve never seen compelling evidence that a majority of employees will abuse the priviledge of candor, or that the risk outweighs the benefits. And I’m don’t necessarily buy the logic that the workforce can be easily divided into white or blue collar (or front-line) workers. Some would argue age, or generational divisions, is much more relevant. 

No matter the workforce, the role of the communication professional is to find the right balance between candor and overload, and the best way to share information and foster relevant dialogue. It’s also critical that we strive to be relevant and responsive, so the communication process is a dialogue rather than a one-way street. But the default should always be to give employees the benefit of the doubt and treat them like intelligent, trustworthy partners. That’s the only way we can build credibility in the process (and leadership team) and drive employee engagement.