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.

My former colleague and fellow Canadian Joe Thornley shared his “do’s and don’ts” for corporate blogs in a recent post, and they provide a very good checklist for any potential company bloggers out there. Since my focus these days in on internal communications, I reviewed the list with an employee audience in mind and - no real surprise - many of the rules still apply. Take a look.

 Do’s 

Listen first -Probably the most relevant tip with regard to internal corporate blogs. Unfortunately, I see a real tendency to want to harness this new channel to push yet more messages to employees. This is the area I will be focusing my efforts in my own company before single post is written. I also intend to increase the ways we can actually “listen” to the workforce beyond rare, formal surveys and polls. Or else, we’re talking to ourselves.

Write about things you are passionate about -Again, this is not the first instinct of many executives when they begin to write for an internal blog. The default is usually to write about corporate news or priorities, and you’re lucky if the folks writing feel strongly about these fairly prosaic issues. It’s also a tough sell to convince executives (or internal experts) to inject their personality into their posts, not just their expertise.

Give without asking for a return -See above…not a normal reaction for executives steeped in discussions of ROI and driving engagement. The challenge is to convince them these things will come, but if and only if they provide something of value to employees through the blog and folks decide to join the conversation. It’s also important to note that a blog will quickly uncover anything that is not genuine or authentic, so any concern for the employee had better be real.

Keep it positive - This may be easier to do in an internal context. In fact, the challenge may be reversed in a corporate setting, working to avoid sugar-coating problems or dancing around unpleasant facts through corporate hype or fluff. There may already be too much positive communication in most corporate settings - and some of it is likely somewhat fabricated or embellished.

Be patient and persistent - No argument here. It takes time to build an audience, to find a voice and to foster a real, vibrant conversation. This holds true for an internal blog even though in theory the employees are a ”captive” audience. Provide relevant and valuable information and allow robust, candid commentary…and they will come.

Dont’s 

Don’t use a ghostwriter -I am a strong advocate that internal authors should essentially write their own posts - even the CEO. Though it’s OK in some circumstances to help them out or do some light editing, they should provide most of the copy in their own voice. Without authenticity, the impact of the blog will be severely limited. This is a tough one for many executives used to plenty of hand-holding and direction in the development of their speeches and memos.

Don’t fake it -I make the case with my peers that to be credible an internal blog must be timely, transparent and candid. As Joe notes, blog readers can be ruthless and unforgiving at the mere hint of a cover-up or lie. Though the criticisms may not be as overt in an internal blog, lack of credibility will quickly corrode the relevance of the blog.

Don’t give up -May not be as relevant for an internal blog, but valuable advice nevertheless. This is not a short-term process with immediate rewards. Like many good things in life, it takes time to develop a good internal blog. After all, this is about building new relationships across levels, locations and communities. That’s not something that can happen overnight - particularly in companies without a tradition of internal conversation.

The latest PR fiasco for Southwest was noteworthy for its timing. During roughly the same time period, I saw two widely divergent depictions of the airline. By coincidence more than otherwise, I witnessed several examples of SWA being positioned as a legend in the PR industry - savvy, successful and carrying a boatload of wisdom and kudos. One trade group was even positioning them as a savant in the area of social media (for what achivement it wasn’t clear.) A number of conference briefs on my desk featured SWA presentations on topics ranging from their unique, ”fun” culture to their mastery of media relation metrics. And this trend has been going on for years. It’s rare you attend a conference where SWA isn’t featured as a bright light in employee engagement, media relations, marketing or even lobbying.

But this laudatory, almost obsequious stream of industry hype was in sharp contrast to what was actually happening in real life. Not content to demonstrate its reactionary, outrageous tendency to ban passengers showing a little skin (at least three times in the past year by my count), Southwest has now really stepped into the mud with reports that it ignored safety guidlines and flew planes it had not properly inspected (it was subsequently confirmed 6 of the planes had cracks in the fuselage.)

How did SWA’s incredible, leading-edge PR machine respond to these claims? At first, their website and blog (which to me is little more than a light-weight, heavily perfumed platform for their marketing machine) made no mention at all. Never happened. I suppose there was no room with all the employee profiles, leadership pep talks and self-congratulatory features. In the face of the media onslaught over the weekend, SWA belatedly and reluctantly came out with a mix of denials, clarifications and excuses - including blaming the FAA. As the weekend progressed they decided to parade CEO Gary Kelly, who said he would vigorously defend his company’s commitment to safety and that the $10 million fine levied against the airline “felt unfair.”

There are two lessons one can draw from this sorry episode. One is how not to respond to a media crisis…but I’ll leave that to another time. But the more interesting one, to my mind, is how the PR industry tends to operate in a dangerous vacuum. Southwest was never as smart or progressive as they were positioned by an industry only too happy to have a super star at the ready. Industry events and awards have always flirted with irrelevance and a sense of detachment from the business world, but now they risk losing their credibility altogether. Now we’ll have to see what they present at their next conference keynote: How to leverage social media in a crisis, perhaps?

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.

Out on the cutting-edge fringes comes a new idea that has a great deal of appeal to me - establishing a social network within the firewalls of a company - an internal Facebook, so to speak. Check out this post to see details. (Full disclosure - thanks to Paul Walker at GCI for the tip.) Though this idea entails some technology challenges, it may be an easier pitch than trying to convince corporate leaders to let their employees access their external networks - even if they do so in informal company groups.  Typically, internal directories and collaboration tools are high on the list for employee intranets, so I suspect this kind of network would be popular and productive. Another thing to put on my list….

Sorry for the paucity of posts the past couple of weeks, but I’ve been in a blur of travel and work assignments – one of which has taken me to a venerable tradition in many companies: the annual meeting of the sales force. I’ve had several discussions over the past week with peers and friends about the value – and sustainability – of these meetings, particularly in companies that are growing beyond the comfortable confines of 10,000 or so employees or expanding across global locations. The costs and logistics for these meetings increase exponentially as a company grows in size and reach. In my last company (Dell) the all-staff meeting had long since been replaced by live, global webcasts and smaller functional or regional meetings supplemented by various technologies (like video-conferencing.) But many companies, either hesitant to tinker with a tradition (particularly involving the sacred sales force) or convinced of the value of face-to-face interaction, continue to go through the regular ritual…complete with award dinners, social events, marketing kits and a bonanza of drink and food.

After coming into the week as a firm proponent of virtual meetings  - leveraging technology to conduct online sessions or even conducting an entire meeting in Second Life – I now have a more tempered perspective. I think there is still huge value in face-to-face interaction – even if the interaction is social as opposed to a purely business function. But I also see the inevitability of companies having to adapt when they become a certain size. Perhaps there is a compromise here – for example conducting regional meetings but linking all the participants by online events or webcasting…kind of a variation of the famous IBM “jams.”  I also think many companies could replicate the face-to-face social aspects of a team meeting with online social networking tools - ranging from Twitter alerts to an event blog. Ignoring the huge opportunities inherent in the Web – and virtual environments like Second Life – is a big mistake.

Picked up some interesting chatter online about an ex-Apple insider criticizing the company’s philosophy - and restrictive  policies - regarding social media. Check out one of the strings here. Assuming this is credible (I have no reason to doubt the story) this post is somewhat surprising, given Apple’s leadership role in product design and marketing. But if you think about it this angle makes sense, since from everything I’ve read or heard Mr. Jobs runs a fairly tight, autocratic ship and favors a command-and-control (and secretive) PR style that is out of sync with the company’s cutting-edge image. It was particularly interesting to note that Apple apparently discourages its execs (or subject matter experts) from blogging under their Apple identity…if they blog at all, and does not support the use of online collaboration tools. This approach is totally out of sync with the emphasis on transparency, candor and collaboration that underlines the Web 2.0 environment. Add another chink in the shining Apple armour…. 

Check out this post by uber blogger Robert Scoble in Fast Company. Scoble raves about new applications that allow teams to collaborate more easily and seamlessly in a virtual “cloud”. News like this is sure to make those trying to function in command-and-control companies cry in despair. While some workers are building programs online and lifting ideas and visuals from shared sites, others can’t even get access to the internet. Unfortunately, the gap seems to be getting wider.

I’m typically the first to tell my peers and colleagues that technology is only a means to an end, and I avoid the temptation to let a cool device come before a strategic plan. That said, technology does have a dramatic impact on how we can communicate with our stakeholders and among our own teams. So I always pay attention to the product launches at huge shows like CES - which is coming this month. According to this article in Fortune, the program this year will feature a number of technology trends:

• New products and applications designed to facilitate the transfer and playing of digital content (in this case MP3 content) like iPods and iPhones
• Devices that allow users to connect to the Internet without the use of a computer, building on the expanding ubiquity of wi-fi zones to access information as diverse as sports, news, maps or weather
• Tools that allow users to play streaming radio broadcasts
• Devices that make wireless even more…well, wireless…building on technology like Bluetooth that allows virtual connections across a wide range of tools

All of these have obvious implications for corporate communications, particularly from an internal perspective. Companies struggling to reach their front-line and remote workers - including those without computer access - should play close attention to this emerging technology. These devices also open the door to more “pull” communications and personalization - which help reduce volume and increase relevance. On the surface, all of these trends seem to have potential applications for all the PR disciplines. Technology provides the delivery channels and tools, of course,  but it also opens the door to important changes in the format and scope of content (e.g. more digital and audio).  Any communicator worth his/her salt should be aware of these basic trends and look for ways to leverage them in their own environment. Otherwise, they risk becoming increasingly irrelevant and marginalized - a criticism the PR industry is already trying to fight.

In a recent post, Shel Holtz adds to the chorus of pundits highlighting the contradictions - and hypocrisy - of executives increasingly embracing social media for marketing or PR but holding back on the employee front. For whatever reason, leaders and communication executives can more easily put aside their fears and take a leap of faith into the digital void outside their companies - which implicitly presumes that employees are more likely to flame the company and abuse the rules than customers, critics, journalists, consumers and even competitors. Can somebody please explain that logic to me?

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.

Too often during discussions about branding - both internal and external applications - PR or marketing folks forget the most critical requisite for a relevant, sustainable and credible brand. No, it’s not delivering on the brand promise, though that is an essential factor if you hope to survive for more than 10 minutes. And no, it’s not a dazzling logo or award-winning creative, though those can also make an impact. And it’s not consumer insight, though that is a critical ingredient if you hope to be resonant. I would even argue it’s not the specific product or service you are marketing, though that will determine if you have a viable business. Ultimately, it’s about having something that is distinctive to sell… and say. It’s about being memorable, and standing out from the crowd. Word-of-mouth guru Andy Sernovitz makes this case (with bonus laughs) in a recent blog post. I can’t begin to count the awkward discussions I’ve had with executives who ask for my opinion on their hopelessly generic and trite corporate values. You know the kind: customers are king, we love employees, let’s be honest, etc….typically displayed on dusty table tents and fading posters. Even if they are all true, these tenets hardly hardly provide employees with a snapshot of the company’s DNA or unique value proposition. And they are unlikely to foster pride and engagement. The same storm of cliches happens outside the firewall. As Andy points out, far too many ads can be transposed across numerous competitors  - and most customers would be hard pressed to know the difference. In the rush to develop ads, or print a bunch of internal posters, communicators too often skip over the importance of defining what is truly different - and special - about a company or product. What is the company’s essence or cultural DNA? What will make people pay attention? What will make them care? What will make them associate a product or service (or related marketing campaign) with a specific company? What will foster buzz and even passion? If you can’t answer these questions with crystal clear answers, it’s time to go back to the drawing board.  

A recent BusinessWeek article does a good job of capturing the debate and developments around the issue of building social networks for employees. The article highlights two of the central questions related to this topic:

• One is whether to build an employee network - or even to allow employees to access existing corporate networks outside the firewall (e.g. virtually every major company has a Facebook network…though many are not sponsored or supervised)
• Assuming you want to proceed, a central question becomes whether to leverage the existing external networks, to create a new network on the internet or to build a network within the firewall

On the first question, I would argue that denying employee access to Facebook and/or ignoring the trend towards networking is akin to sticking a finger in a massive dike…the decision is short-sighted and unrealistic.

On the latter question, there is merit to all three options, but also distinctive challenges. For those companies who fear breaches of confidentiality or have a workforce that is grumpy and likely to be highly critical, it may make more sense to initially create an in-house network. For others - particularly companies whose employees are likely to be advocates and already have a high profile on the net, it probably makes sense to create an external site.

But the important point here is to recognize that employees are already active on networks, and that there are already conversations going on about the company. So the question becomes whether there is benefit in harnessing that employee networking for the company’s benefit. Furthermore, the tools that make social networks so attractive can be leveraged to drive collaboration and alignment across an organization. With that background, it seems like keeping the digital door shut tight is an exercise in futility, and probably bad for business.  

I just returned from presenting at a Conference Board event in Chicago, which was focused on engaging employees in the brand. The workshop I facilitated with my good friend David Kippen at TMP Worldwide was about how to manage a brand in the face of the Web 2.0 revolution. It’s always an interesting gauge to compare notes with peers at an industry conference or event, and this one was no different. Here are some of my main observations:

• At this point virtually all companies or organizations in the session were aware of social media - though some only peripherally - and are thinking about if and how they get involved. From my unscientific poll of attendees, most seem intent on doing something, though what exactly they are not sure. A few had already started down the path of setting up wikis or blogs.
• There appears to be much more focus on how the Web 2.0 tools can be leveraged with (and for) an internal audience. This is great news, given the huge potential to leverage these tools to engage employees in relevant conversation, foster collaboration and leverage internal best practices and ideas.
• The IT and Legal departments are universally seen as the biggest barriers (perceived or real) to getting involved in social media. On the Legal side, the complaint is understandable - though I made a case at the conference that Legal’s resistance is often overstated and it’s not an onerous task to define clear rules of engagement (either for internal or external tools.) Still, there are numerous nervous discussions about worst case scenarios (what if our employees share secrets or badmouth the CEO?) despite the fact this can already happen over the phone, email, etc. The IT criticism is more problematic, and is certainly in line with my own experience and observations. The department that should be leading the charge in exploring and adopting new tools and technology is too often a laggard, stubbornly resisting change of any sort with little or no valid reasoning (is it really valid to suggest it takes several months for a project to get on the “roadmap”?)
• Folks from a wide range of departments - Corporate Communications, HR, Marketing, Internal Communications - were represented at the event and actively involved in the discussions. This is an excellent trend, since in most cases it will take a robust cross-functional effort to devise and implement a social media strategy.
• In some cases, Marketing seems to be leading the corporate charge in social media. On the one hand this is good, since the marketing folks are typically savvy in online trends and technology and certainly know their way around digital content (like videos and websites.) On the other hand, this should raise some red flags, since though smart and well-intentioned, folks in marketing are the most likely to ignore the informal rules of engagement and push the envelope into pushy and ill-advised pitching.

All in all, it was good to see this topic front and center in yet another industry event. Slowly but surely, seems like the PR industry is catching on that this is most definitely not a fad.

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.

I had some interesting  conversations last week on the topic of employee communications, notably if and how organizations are adopting the lessons of social networks and the Web into their internal strategies. I think the verdict is decidedly mixed. Some companies continue to hesitate on making the shift from traditional communication to dynamic conversations. In some cases the caution is valid (for example in unionized manufacturing environments) but in many it’s a function of ignorance and/or inertia. Other organizations have made good progress - introducing internal blogs, wikis, RSS capability, customized intranet portals, robust search engines, digital content production, interactive training modules…among many others. And the point of these tools is not the technology, but rather the philosophy behind them - to foster candid dialogue, faciliate peer-to-peer collaboration, encourage employee input and innovation, provide relevant and interesting training, allow for time-shifting of information, and leverage existing or potential networks of like-minded workers. But often these successes focus on the basic internal mandate - helping employees do their jobs efficiently and effectively.  

What I don’t see nearly as often is companies that strive to make their employees fans of their company, and ultimately active ambassadors outside the organization. From my experience, these are areas where few companies dare to tread and even fewer succeed. The companies that do this well - Nike, Apple, Patagonia - have found a formula that fosters legitimate commitment and passion among their employees. It starts with liking (loving?) the products and services provided by the company, of course, but also includes strong affinity with the vision and beliefs of the organization. How do the companies do it? I think it starts with the basics - make sure your employees use (and like) your own products.  Let them define and represent the brand inside and outside the work environment. Foster a true sense of community. Treat them like your main marketing asset, not an after-thought.

Once you have this well informed, excited group of employees the next step is leveraging them as advocates for the company (and brand.) Let them interact with customers or share their thoughts on the company blog - or their own blog. Give them the tools to create and share their own marketing materials (like viral videos.) Make them the focus of external events or presentations. And of course, let them use and promote your products.  

Why does all this matter? Can’t we just focus on making sure they do their jobs and drive revenue? Think of it this way. Even with effective internal communication, you can have a workforce that is either invisible or critical outside the company. The ideal is to have a majority of employees act as your de-facto marketing army, spreading the good word with customers and peers alike. No matter where your organization is on this spectrum, it all starts with empathy and respect for the employees. Passion and alignment cannot be forced or manufactured. Maybe it’s just about treating your employees like customers…your best customers.

Update: What is a company’s worst nightmare? Employees that turn against the company and corrode the brand reputation - think of them as “kryptonite” ambassadors. See this  BusinessWeek article on the problems at Wal-Mart stemming from disgruntled and cynical employees.

A special report in the latest BusinessWeek details a trend among online players to add social networking features to their sites - in effect creating their own versions of Facebook of MySpace. The impetus is obvious - these companies (notably Yahoo, eBay and Playboy) want to attract users and keep them on their sites as long as possible. And the way to do that is to foster online communities - where like-minded people with specific interests can create identities, share and create content and meet or make friends. In short, they can come to socialize, rather than just browse or shop. As BusinessWeek points out, this trend is not new - numerous sites have introduced message boards for example - but the scale and speed of adoption is unprecedented.

What interested me about this article is not just the evolving competitive landscape among web giants, but the obvious implications for companies trying to engage their employees. Taking the trend in-house, so to speak. Presumably, one can assume many employees - particularly those under 30 - are looking for some interaction and personalization from their company intranet. They want more than static headlines and stilted messaging. The problem is they can rarely find that. Companies that learn from the Web and internalize some of these networking tools should benefit through increased traffic and their site should become more sticky and relevant. After all, many of these employees are likely already on social network sites outside the firewalls, so why not let them engage in conversation on their own website?

Noted blogger/podcaster Shel Holtz has a good post on the latest mess by a PR agency (and client) not being totally transparent about their relationship or agenda. This case involves Burson Marsteller creating an instant organization on behalf of Microsoft - ostensibly to lobby for online freedom and competition - but failing to acknowlege the obvious link. To make matters worse, the folks at BM also aggressively pitched their case to incredulous journalists. Another black eye for PR firms.

As Holtz writes, it’s amazing that companies still use these dubious (and outdated) tactics even though they go squarely against the “no BS” ethos of the Web - where candor and transparency are the price of entry - and the Web is littered with examples of agencies burned by similar scandals. But the lesson here goes beyond PR campaigns, and the miscue does not have to be an egregious cover-up. I’ve seen several examples recently, for example, where corporate campaigns aimed at employees were met with yawns and snickers. Despite plenty of planning and expense, these well crafted messages and materials were essentially dead on arrival. Why? Because they were seen as paint-by-numbers pabulum - neither relevant, forthright or personal. Most people - whether on the Web or in companies - are looking for authenticity and for value. They also want to be a part of deciding what kind of information they receive, and how they get it. Anything that seems artificial, generic or misleading will be challenged or ignored. The sooner PR practicioners learn this lesson the better.

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.

In a conversation with a senior communications executive last week, I raised a topic that could easily brand me as a heretic, or even lunatic - I asked if managers were still the most critical and effective communication channel for employees. Sure, I was being a devil’s advocate, but I’ve been thinking about this issue for weeks and decided to air it out.

Here was my logic. With the advent of Web 2.0 technology and the dramatic changes in how people access, share and discuss information, is it possible that managers are less relevant and critical to the employee communication process? At many forward-thinking companies (including the one I work at) you can find a combination of the following developments that have totally changed the communication environment:

·         Intranet portals with RSS capability - which allows employees to “pull” relevant information as it is posted – and the ability to personalize content

·         Increasing use of webcasting and sophisticated video-conferencing tools – which bring executives and other employees “face-to-face” on the desktop or screen

·         Blogs that foster vigorous dialogue – both between executives and employees and among the workforce

·         Wikis or other virtual project management tools that allow increased peer-to-peer collaboration and user-generated content

·         Increasing use of podcasts, which allow employees to download and “time shift” content and access it when it’s most convenient

·         Internal crowd-sourcing tools that allow employees to suggest (and even rank) ideas

·         Expanding use of mobile technology – ranging from the ubiquitous BlackBerry to devices like the iPhone – that allow virtually any content to be shared, accessed and stored using a mobile device

·         “Virtual” sites like Second Life to conduct training sessions or conduct employee meetings

·         And finally, more employees are working virtually from the road or the local coffee-shop with free wi-fi…and that’s not even factoring in the expanding use of online stringers and ad-hoc teams who can’t even be considered employees

The impact of these developments is that many employees can (at least in theory) access critical information much more easily, more conveniently and in more rich formats than ever before. (And that doesn’t even touch on information they can access through external channels.) And none of these channels requires a manager.

So does that mean managers are no longer important in the communication chain?  I would say they still are…but less so. Just as we learned that email and intranets are not a panacea, there’s probably still a need for the “high touch” to go with this new wave of “high tech.” All the research I’ve seen suggests managers are still the most trusted and relevant information source for many employees. And there will always be a role for managers to reaffirm, interpret and customize corporate information to make it more relevant to their teams or regions – whether they do that in person or using the tools listed above. Furthermore, in some working environments – like manufacturing facilities or call centers – new technology is not as prevalent or useful as it is for the typical peripatetic professional. Still, it’s worth taking a close look at this issue and fighting the inclination to just accept conventional wisdom – even for the most sacred dogma of internal communication.    

An article in BusinessWeek captures the inexorable blurring of lines between the professional and personal lives among increasingly tech-savvy workers. As the article puts it, this is both good and bads news for the user…and the company. For many our personal toolkit - which used to be limited to a work PC and perhaps a cell phone and home computer - has expanded to broadband mobile phones, BlackBerrys, wi-fi capable laptops, iPhones…the list goes on. As a result workers can access content from a range of tools and numerous locations, and don’t distinguish as much between work and personal tools or content. I know that holds true for me - my Tweeter account is featured via widget in my Net-Vibes feeds…which I access for both work and play; I check my Facebook and Linked-In accounts from my work laptop and my work files from my home desktop; I open my Yahoo email account from a free terminal in the airport; like many, I check my BlackBerry during soccer games and gym workouts; in fact, I am now writing this post from work (full disclosure!) The result of all this overlap - according to BW - is that personal devices (and technology and applications) are making inroads into the corporate domain, and the trend is picking up steam. IT managers in the U.S. and some Euro countries expect use of non-company hardware to grow to 42% of employees by 2008. Some companies are acknowledging this trend and giving their employees more latitude regarding the tools and applications they use. One of the reasons is leaders want to support initiative and foster innovation in the workforce. Another is that preventing employees from access to the online world is simply counter-productive. This has obvious implications for company firewall and security issues - which present a thorny problem even under the best scenario.

Beyond all the technical issues, the most relevant trend in all this is perhaps that the age-old distinction between the employee audience and external stakeholders continues to erode. It no longer matters much where we work from, or when we are working. Employees get as much information from outside sources as inside channels. It no longer matters as much if the technology or tool are yours or not, or dedicated for personal matters or work. All of these changes add up to an increasingly mobile, fluid communication environment with few distinctions between work and play.  Good or bad? You decide.

Seems like I’m not the only one that is concerned about the major gap emerging between increasingly tech-savvy Gen Y and X folks and the (older) executives of some of our finer organizations. This article in Information Week about a recent conference is one of many that argues that younger workers expect a range of Web 2.0 tools in organizations that they work for and with. Companies that don’t provide those tools can do little to stem the tide, since you can bet many of their younger employees will be fully engaged in multiple online conversations outside of work. So the question becomes whether companies want to be a part of their employees’ conversations - and at least try to monitor and leverage the dialogue as best they can - or just remain ignorant bystanders. Taking it a more positive spin, companies can really benefit if they foster their own sense of community via Web 2.0 technology and involve their employees in productive brainstorming, dialogue and collaboration. Ultimately, companies that don’t evolve with their workforce will be unable to effectively communicate with their employees - not only will they not use the right tools, but they won’t even speak the same language.

In recent weeks I’ve written several times - with all good intentions - about the lack of engagement of many internal communication professionals in the Web 2.0 revolution. But laggards avoid the issue at their own risk. As a recent post in the Melcrum blog argues, the PR world is seeing its own version of global warming - the blurring and melting of firewalls between internal and external audiences. As technology becomes increasingly mobile and affordable and communication habits evolve, it’s becoming increasingly difficult (and irrelevant) to think of employees as an insular, distinctive audience separate from external stakeholders. We always knew there was considerable overlap, of course, since employees are also consumers and critics who have private lives outside the office. But the premise was that much of the company-employee communication process could still be neatly managed in-house. No longer. (For one thing, the primary reasons for trying to keep the internal communication private - to protect confidential information - is becoming less relevant in this age of transparency and consumer advocacy.) Companies that understand this trend are not only using Web 2.0 tools - wikis, idea management systems, blogs, peer networks - within the organization to foster dialogue with their employees, but also increasingly thinking about what external tools can be leveraged for internal benefit. They understand that limiting outreach to formal internal channels is accepting an increasingly limited share of voice among their employees. In this brave new world, the challenge for companies is to be a relevant part of important conversations that involve their employees…no matter where they occur.    

Found a funny post by Steve Crescenzo on the MyRagan site that details the various “types” of communicators in the business - more specifically, folks dealing with internal communications. Only one of the five “types” described by Steve is positive, but they certainly all ring true to me. My observation reading the post is that the main challenge to internal communicators is fighting the powerful inertia inherent in the role - avoiding the easier and smoother ride into irrelevance. It’s often difficult to stick to your position against all the internal clients, naysayers and well-intentioned “experts” - but that is precisely the most important part of the job. Particularly when it comes to pushing back with the CEO and executive team. If you just give in with this crowd, your role is greatly diminished. Doing the right thing has never been more important, and it’s not going to get any easier as our business continues to evolve.

Just read an interesting report on corporate intranets in the Wall Street Journal - of all places. ( http://wsj.com/reports) The premise was that too many intranets are “due for a makeover” and that far too few are delivering on the huge potential of the available technology. Based on my observations over the years (on both the agency and corporate side) I unfortunately have to concur. The most egregrious flaws: too much clutter, clunky navigation, inadequate search capability, stale content, a surfeit of corporate hype or fluff, and a confusing tangle of competing or unrelated sites. Too many intranets don’t even effectively serve their most elemental function - to act as an information portal for employees.

There are some obvious fixes: adding RSS capability, robust collaboration tools (like wikis), use of vlogs and podcasts, and elimination of stale or rogue sites. But the best recipe for success is to apply the same rule that drives success in the Web 2.0 environment - put yourself in the shoes (or sandals?) of your users…in this case the employees. At too many companies (including some I have worked with/at) employees can’t find what they need, can’t pull what they want, can’t collaborate or communicate with their colleagues and/or can’t contribute to the site. And presumably, some employees are simply turned off by the ill-advised layout “vision” of the site designers. All of these shortcomings can be addressed by leveraging emerging technology to make intranets a more engaging, user-friendly, personalized and collaborative environment. But ultimately, it’s about building intranets for the employees, not for the CEO.  

I just returned from NYC, where I attended a very productive conference hosted by the Insidedge team from Golin/Harris (http://insidedge.net), which specializes in employee communications and change management. [Full disclosure: I was co-founder of the Insidedge group and spent five great years with the team.] One of the salient themes was the impact of Web 2.0 technology (and philosophy) on employee communications. As in other recent conferences, I was struck by the wide gulf between companies that are fully embracing new tools and those that seem to be hoping all this talk of blogs and wikis would just go away. A telling symptom of this digital divide: several of these communication executives (all from major companies) had never heard of Second Life.

Perhaps the most interesting presentation was by Christopher Barger, until recently chief blogger at IBM and now serving the same function at General Motors. Chris’ remarks on IBM’s embrace of Web 2.0 tools was eye-opening; IBM serves as a great example of a very progressive approach to leveraging new technology to enhance internal communications - witness their laid-back approach to employee blogs and advanced use of collaboration tools. But as became clear during the presentations and discussions, one size does not fit all. What works for IBM may not work at, say, an auto manufacturer with an older, unionized workforce. (Good luck Chris!) Like in marketing or politics, you have to tailor your approach to your specific “customers.” But the ultimate lesson here is that all companies - no matter what their culture, demographics or industry - need to investigate and leverage relevant Web 2.0 tools. If not, as the new tech-savvy generations enter the workforce, companies risk being badly out of sync with the new communication model. And any communication team worth its salt should want to be leading the wave, rather than dragging the anchor.

Just read a comprehensive report in BusinessWeek’s online edition on Second Life. (I still haven’t figured out how to properly include links so in the interim here is the URL - www.businessweek.com/technology/special_reports/20070416virtuallife.htm .) It’s a great primer for those who want to understand what SL is all about - and why it matters. The report thankfully goes beyond the usual discussions on marketing and branding implications and includes some good examples of how some companies (notably Intel and Raytheon) are leveraging the virtual environment with their employees through dynamic collaboration and 3-D training. This is essential reading for internal communication consultants struggling to see beyond the hype and understand how they can actually use the technology. I was also surprised to learn there are actually a number of viable alternatives to SL.

I attended a great communications conference last week - one which thankfully featured more senior practitioners than the usual consultants hacking their magic bullets - and I was struck by the wide range of understanding and involvement in digital media tools. Some folks still seemed very hesitant to develop corporate/CEO blogs - and were trying to run their analysis through traditional risk-reward paradigm - while others were intent on catching the wave. The discussion was catalyzed when Bill Jensen, who leads an eponymous consulting group, laid out the fundamental shifts in how information is shared online, particularly by the Gen Y cohort. In short, anyone who believes we still control the flow of relevant information - or that we should - is missing the boat. Clearly, some in the audience were not willing to let go of the old model and embrace this scary new environment populated with citizen journalists, vibrant social networks and self-appointed blog pundits. This was particularly true of those involved in internal/employee communications. I suspect this will change in the coming months. Though caution and deliberation is certainly warranted before making the digital leap - it’s better to figure out why and how you will engage in Web 2.0 technology than just jumping in - PR professionals will quickly lose relevance and credibility if they don’t become fluent in this new environment. By the way - I take no personal credit for being knee-deep in this brave new world; I have the good fortune to be working with very smart, creative people who are willing to take risks and understand the huge potential of the web.

Cheers