Leadership Is Own Worst Enemy In Manager Outreach

My fellow Northwestern Wildcat alumni David Grossman, an internal communication expert, recently shared research in his blog suggesting senior managers are the biggest roadblock to “fearless” internal communication by managers. Gaining leader understanding and support remains a big challenge for many managers who are willing and able to communicate with their teams. This research certainly confirms my own experience, where tremendous focus and energy is devoted to developing creative communication plans, introducing new or improved communication channels and/or helping managers to be better communicators…sometimes all for naught. Ultimately, politics trumps it all. If leaders aren’t on board and actively participating in the communication effort, it will likely fail.

Of course, many communication professionals are aware of this potential pitfall and take steps to avoid this executive resistance. Tactics include enlisting influential leaders as participants or ambassadors, framing programs with leader-friendly arguments like ROI and strategic benefits, or even using market (or competitor) data as motivation. But without a clear mandate, or directive, from the top leaders of the organization, some “walk the talk” evidence they are on-board, and tangible incentives and rewards for active communication, the manager cascade process will remain vulnerable to political meddling. Sometimes, managers are discouraged through subtle, symbolic actions (or lack of action) or apparently throw-away comments (“…you can check the intranet but do it on your own time”.) But I’ve also witnessed explicit warnings by leaders, telling managers that no matter what they hear from HQ, communication is a distraction and comes second to productivity.

Conversely, in one organization it took just one very clear directive from an executive to his senior team to get an ambitious manager communication program untracked and embedded in the daily work routine. And this was in a contact center environment, where time is indeed money and around-the-clock staff support is critical. Another effective approach is to use the broader workforce to drive change. Most managers can make a strong case that their employees are starved for information and rely on them as the most relevant and credible sources. They can even go to their leaders with examples of prevalent questions or rumors that require a clear, concise response. In other words, let us do what needs to be done.

The lesson here is clear: communication pros must proactively address any leadership resistance to manager communication through the planning and implementation cycle – even silent resistance – to ensure managers can participate to their full potential. Managers are probably your best communication asset, even in this age of social media.

Cultural Orientation Needs Human Touch

A recent article in the San Jose Mercury News provides a fascinating window into how Facebook educates its rapidly expanding global workforce about the company’s celebrated culture. According to the article, Facebook uses a very high-touch strategy led by “landing teams” of trained HQ staff who parachute into new offices for assignments, which often last at least one year. Their mission: to carry and recreate the distinctive Facebook cultural DNA to the new troops. The landing team use a range of activities and tools to tell their story – including the Facebook “hackathon” event, which is designed to demonstrate the value of risk-taking and collaboration and spread some of that start-up pixie dust. Even the office set up is designed to replicate the look and feel of headquarters. Part of the team’s role includes recruiting new staff. During their assignments these ambassadors are expected to do their regular jobs. That’s an impressive commitment, and a good formula to get the best ambassadors.

This story is interesting on many fronts, not the least of which is the priority placed on ensuring new staff understand and embrace the company’s identity and values across diverse global locations. But perhaps the most important lesson here is the focus on sustained, face-to-face teaching – or call it mentoring. Culture has always been a strange animal for organizations, with the orientation and education work typically shared across a motley mix of teams (notably HR, marketing and internal communications). Often orientation is packaged as one-day firehose of materials and briefings – ranging from legal requirements to cafeteria menus – with culture delegated to some seminal historical documents and reinforced by vague, trite collateral in the facilities. The missing ingredient is often the hallway conversations – usually informal but sometimes led by assigned mentors – that carries the real stories, and implicit norms, that are true representations of the company culture.

The Facebook approach works well on several levels:

• It focuses on the real culture that staff already live and breathe, not some boardroom aspiration or stale bullet points in an elevator;
• It uses committed, passionate workers who have a range of jobs, not “trained staff” from support departments who are more likely to use canned materials and messages;
• It suggests that conveying information on topics like values and mores involves as much show as tell, and more emotion than fact;
• It rightfully assumes that teaching new staff about culture – and making sure they understand and embrace the values and norms – is not a one-shot deal, but a long-term commitment; and,
• It recognizes that even in dynamic, innovative global companies like Facebook a shared, coherent cultural experience is important to workplace morale and productivity.

I’ll admit that the Facebook approach may not work for all organizations – who after all have their own distinctive DNA – but it’s worth asking whether more traditional approaches work anymore.

Apple Insider View Shows Secrecy is Company DNA

I came across a post that purports to be from an Apple front-line employee this week. It’s always interesting to get insider views from major companies – particularly ones like Apple which like to carefully manage their public image and fiercely guard their corporate secrets. I have no idea if this account is legitimate, but assuming it is there are several insights that I gained from the post:

• First and foremost, Apple seems to be as prickly and protective about company secrets with its employees as with consumers and news media. Based on this account Apple store employees appear to get little or no warning of major announcements – presumably to avoid leaks.
• Along the same lines, Apple management clearly enforces strict rules on everything from sales restrictions to product information. So the casual, cool atmosphere of stores apparently doesn’t preclude fairly strict protocol on staff behavior.
• Apple seems to make special effort to involve staff in product launches (once the information is public) through special briefing sessions, store events and training.
• Though this employee feels pressured to sell – something true of any retail environment – he/she acknowledges the effort Apple makes to support and encourage staff in their efforts. Some of the activities are what you would expect from an uber-hip company like Apple – a masseuse on site, ordering in food, etc. It also appears staff get bonuses for the brutal hours during product launches.
• For better or for worse, Apple seems to be doing a good job promoting their culture  and credo (what the staffer calls a cult) through collateral, training sessions and management reminders. This writer isn’t quite sure they like the taste of the cool-aid.
• The staffer mentions the lure of becoming one of Apple’s famed “genius” staff, which suggests there is opportunity for advancement…and presumably commensurate benefits in reaching that position.

Overall, this seems like a fairly exciting workplace with pros and cons. It’s interesting to note the staffer barely mentions things that are often hailed as Apple’s workplace assets – including free/cheap use of products, pride in working for a global leader and an atmosphere of innovation. That’s a good reminder that all jobs are ultimately judged through our personal perspective and day-to-day activities.

Merger/Acquisition Communications More Than One-Time Information “Push”

Over the past couple of weeks I’ve had to come up with some best practices on M&A communications. I thought I’d share these and invite any comments or questions.

Though circumstances around every M&A situation will vary, there are certain best practices that can help ensure communications is credible and effective, and help organizations to navigate cultural and operational integration. Essentially, organizations need to clearly explain the rationale and implications of the M&A, and lay out a clear roadmap to help staff understand their role going forward.  It’s also important to provide clarity around expected impact on staffing, culture and integration of workplace benefits and programs – these will be important concerns for most employees. Underlying the messaging, of course, there needs to be compelling reasons for employees to remain loyal and engaged through the transition period and beyond.

Here is a checklist of these key considerations:

• Focus on the rationale – 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 merger or acquisition? The logic and credibility of this core argument will determine the success of the integration effort.
• Be timely – Many M&A situations raise questions about winners and losers – what brands will survive, what facilities might close, what leaders are promoted, etc. It’s important to confirm and communicate these facts in a timely, logical sequence to avoid uncertainty and anxiety among employees.  Though some decisions may not be popular with all staff groups, it’s preferable to communicate these changes promptly than risk a sustained malaise or inertia among staff.
• What’s in it for me? – One of the critical elements required in any M&A communication effort is a clear indication of how employees across all regions and levels will benefit from the change. 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 – you need to make the link between company gains and personal benefits.
• Be candid about implications – Beyond making a compelling case for change, leaders also need to be candid about the more negative or contentious implications from the M&A – such as restructurings or layoffs.  Trying to avoid these tough issues will erode the credibility of the communication effort (and leadership team.)
• What will not change? – With talk of change and integration, 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 (including M&As) 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.  There should be ample opportunities for staff questions. 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. It goes without saying that social media provides rich opportunities to support this conversation, so communicators really have no excuse in this regard.
• Plan beyond the announcement – Many companies leverage broad, multi-year internal marketing campaigns to direct and support post-merger integration. Thinking beyond the initial announcement helps package a complex set of messages into a compelling, logical thematic framework that can appeal to employees and provide a sense of continuity. 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 M&A communication, they need to ensure their directives and messages are consistent across audiences, particularly related to marketing or staffing 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. In a similar vein, any communication plan needs to carefully coordinate outreach with employees from both companies involved.
• Engage hearts and minds – While it’s critical to have solid empirical evidence to make the case for a merger or acquisition, 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 after the announcement…how they personally have to change. A critical element of any M&A 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.
• Focus on customers – Despite an obvious emphasis on communicating with staff, it’s important to keep in mind employees need to remain productive and engaged during any transition period. Any communication program, therefore, needs to avoid becoming a major distraction and should concentrate on helping staff do their jobs despite all the changes.
• Measure your progress – As with any communication effort, it’s important to monitor the reach and impact of any program in order to measure effectiveness and make necessary adjustments to messaging or tactics. In many M&A cases, organizations introduce additional metrics to ensure they are closely tracking their progress.

What do you think about these best practices?

Finding the Right Communication Touch Points Requires Fresh Thinking

A recent article in the Harvard Business Review – which continues to provide solid contributions to the analysis of social media’s impact on culture and industry – argues that many marketers are using an outdated model and spending money and effort in the wrong places. The article states: Consumers still want a clear brand promise and offerings they value. What has changed is when—at what touch points—they are most open to influence, and how you can interact with them at those points. In the past, marketing strategies that put the lion’s share of resources into building brand awareness and then opening wallets at the point of purchase worked pretty well. But touch points have changed in both number and nature, requiring a major adjustment to realign marketers’ strategy and budgets with where consumers are actually spending their time. [I added the bold for emphasis.] The authors take a fresh look at the “funnel” marketing model where awareness drives consideration which drives purchase. According to their research, today’s consumers take a much more iterative and less reductive journey of four stages: consider, evaluate, buy, and enjoy, advocate, bond.

Variations of this new theory have been around for a while, but what I found interesting is questioning if and how this critical analysis would apply to communications – both internal and external. In other words, are we focusing our communication efforts in the wrong places and events, and perhaps also using the wrong channels and tools? Let’s take internal communications as an example.

Traditional employee communication “touch points” have focused on seminal events like orientation, staff/company meetings, quarterly updates and annual workplace campaigns like benefit enrollment. In terms of channels, many companies still favor traditional, formal push formats like email, memos and staff meetings – though many are exploring more interactive, virtual channels and transforming their intranets into dynamic social platforms. In fact, the bulk of internal communication seems to be event-driven and episodic, rather than an ongoing dialogue. The question all communicators should ask is: are these the right “touch points” to reach our employees, and are we using the right methods to interact with them? When are our employees most receptive to information? When are they likely to discuss news with peers or leaders? When might they want to add their own opinions or ideas to the mix?

Using the proposed HBR paradigm, I suggest that most internal communication programs are lacking in the following areas:

• Consideration – Organizations devote considerable effort to attracting talent and even branding the work experience (or the employee value proposition) but I would argue too many consider the “sale” completed once the employee is hired. That approach is short-sighted, given the chronic percentage of disengaged employees and the attrition of key talent at many companies (particularly after the initial honeymoon year.) Like consumer brands, companies need to pursue a sustained approach that seeks to keep employees engaged well past the point of hiring.
• Evaluation – Though employees are in some ways a captive audience they are likely to engage in the same evaluation process as consumers, and may seek input from peers, third-parties and even competitors when assessing the relevance and credibility of internal messages or even the quality of their workplace. This evaluation is also likely to generate questions and comments from staff. From my observation, few companies provide an adequate process to manage this deliberation process, presumably assuming employees will simply accept the information (and directives) at face value. Another point that probably fits here is that evaluation by employees should ideally allow ways for them to contribute their own ideas and feedback to company programs and policies.
• Advocate – While most companies devote considerable resources to identifying and leveraging their consumer fan base, far fewer take a similar approach with their internal advocates. Progressive companies need to consider not only how to leverage their influential ambassadors inside the company, but also how to mobilize their staff outside the firewalls. In my experience, many companies aren’t even aware of the profile and actions of their employees on networks like Facebook and Twitter, and even fewer have a proactive program to harness staff and alumni as informal advocates with external stakeholders.
• Bond – While many companies are exploring new ways to drive internal collaboration under the guise of productivity, few are focusing on helping their staff network and share content for the sake of cultural alignment and personal connection. If we’ve learned nothing else from the explosion of social media, it’s that people want to connect with each other. Still, some companies make it difficult for staff to communicate – or even identify each other – using corporate channels, probably due to concerns the chatter will be a distraction. And company email doesn’t make the cut in this regard.

An additional observation that doesn’t fit in the HBR model is that many companies focus only on their own formal communication channels to communicate with employees. Given the explosion of mobile technology and prevalence of social networks, a better approach would be to assess how employees communicate inside and outside the company and find relevant ways to participate in that digital conversation. Continuing to push out information through enclosed channels that may be an after-thought to most employees is not a viable solution.

Perhaps the best approach for companies is to treat their employees as consumers – or even free-agents – who require the same sustained attention as people considering brands and products. Keeping staff informed, productive and loyal is a full-time marketing challenge.

Numbers Add Up on Social Media ROI

Many discussions about social media inevitably turn to the issue of ROI – or how you can measure impact and, more specifically, if there is empirical evidence (or reliable projections) that social media can boost hard business metrics like productivity, revenue and profits. While I’ve heard of a few isolated success stories (like Dell’s profits through Twitter promotions) I haven’t seen much consensus on a measurable, widespread impact – particularly related to consumer activities. In fact, there are still pockets of skeptics who deny social media can add directly to the bottom line. (Conversely, some social media fans/users suggest focusing on finding a bullet-proof ROI link is missing the point, since social media is more about conversation and engagement than short-term returns.)

Well, the folks at McKinsey – who could never be accused of using fuzzy math – recently came out with a study that suggests companies who make extensive use of the Web 2.0 technology have higher returns and margins than their peers. [FYI: you may have to subscribe to McKinsey to view the full report.] What’s telling about the findings is that McKinsey found that organizations that were highly networked – meaning they leveraged collaborative technology inside the enterprise as well as with external partners – were most likely to be market leaders (and gainers) and benefit from higher margins. There is plenty of room for progress, however; only 3 percent of survey respondents were defined as fully networked enterprises – with robust social media engagement across audiences. McKinsey also details the trend towards increasing use of social media inside the enterprise, and the shift beyond the more established business-to-consumer activities. The authors suggest this trend will exacerbate a gap between the forward-thinking organizations (who are gaining measurable benefits) and those reluctant to fully engage the collaborative technology.

A closer look at the findings shows that respondents to the global survey defined a wide range of “measurable benefits” – which confirms that most organizations are looking well beyond core metrics like profit-and-loss for evidence of ROI. But the purported benefits are by no means soft, in corporate parlance. Take a look at the top 4 benefits – based on percentage of respondents whose companies achieved benefits from use of Web 2.0 technologies – across the main categories:

Internal Purposes

• Increase speed of access to knowledge (77% of respondents)
• Reduce communication costs (60%)
• Increase speed of access to internal experts (52%)
• Decrease travel costs (44%)

Consumer Purposes

• Increase effectiveness of marketing (awareness, consideration, conversion & loyalty) (63%)
• Increase customer satisfaction (50%)
• Reduce marketing costs (45%)
• Reduce support costs (35%)

External Partners/Suppliers

• Increase speed of access to knowledge (57%)
• Reduce communication costs (53%)
• Increase satisfaction of partners (45%)
• Increase speed of access to external experts (40%)

How can companies join the networked high flyers described in this survey? Here are suggestions from the McKinsey study:

• Integrate the use of Web 2.0 into employees’ day-to-day work activities. What’s in the work flow is what gets used by employees and what leads to benefits.
• Continue to drive adoption and usage. Benefits appear to be limited without a base level of adoption and usage.
• Break down the barriers to organizational change. Fully networked organizations appear to have more fluid information flows, deploy talent more flexibly to deal with problems, and allow employees lower in the corporate hierarchy to make decisions.
• Apply Web 2.0 technologies to interactions with customers, business partners, and employees. Fully networked organizations can achieve the highest levels of self-reported benefits in all types of interactions

As someone who spends a great deal of my time working with companies on internal issues, I’m glad to get this additional ammunition to help convince companies their greatest potential to leverage social media may be inside the organization. McKinsey’s describes these progressive internally networked organizations as cultures where “information is shared more readily and less hierarchically, collaboration across organizational silos is more common, and tasks are more often tackled in a project-based fashion.” Buried in this description is the root of the problem; the reality is that some companies are still not willing to foster this type of decentralized, fluid communication environment. To some, information is still power…and they don’t want to give it up.

Global Media Trends Confirm Growth of Web & Mobility

One of the challenges of communication planning is coming up with relevant, realistic strategies to communicate with/to a specific audience. Whether the strategic purpose is marketing, reputation management or employment branding, the discussion inevitably reaches the question of delivery and media channels. (One example that comes up frequently in my work is if/how blue-collar employees access the internet from their homes or phones.) Often, in the absence of usage audits or anecdotal evidence, we make assumptions about internet access, hardware and popularity of specific media platforms. A new report on global media trends by AdAge provides some useful context for this discussion.

There are several interesting findings in the study:

• Facebook (with a user base of 517 million) dominates all other platforms in terms of time spent on site;
• Media habits in the United States (e.g. the decline popularity of newspapers) are different from other global regions;
• Television has tremendous reach and popularity in many areas of the world – including many poor markets;
• Internet access continues to expand, fueled in emerging markets by cheap cyber cafes;
• Video use is booming in developing markets (like the BRIC countries);
• Mobile phone growth and penetration is driving most internet usage (due to lower cost compared to desktop or laptop access); and,
• Digital data content continues to explode – with the latest boost powered by video and movies.

I saw evidence of many of these trends during a visit to Tanzania – where locals could visit internet cafes and guides on Kilimanjaro used phones (all the way up to the summit) to communicate with each other.

These global trends, of course, lack the detail and depth required to adequately plan and execute communications aimed at specific audiences – or communities. Communication and marketing professionals still need to do their homework to confirm the best media recipe to reach a particular group – whether internal or external. The ultimate lesson might be to avoid making too many assumptions; media habits and technology are both evolving at a rapid pace and stereotypes are often based on dubious or outdated data.

Rolls-Royce Tries Quiet Crisis Response

There is strong consensus across the PR industry for an approach to crisis management that emphasizes proactive outreach, transparency, visible resolution and executive presence. But not all companies subscribe to that strategy. Witness the recent crisis involving Rolls-Royce – whose fiery engine failure on a Qantas jumbo jet forced the airplane to make an emergency landing.

In the face of intensive global media coverage – and speculation on the cause of the engine failure – Rolls limited its initial response to two terse written statements (buried in its website) which essentially said it was looking into the problem. The tone and content of the statements is very much “stiff upper lip”: factual, low-key and devoid of any emotion or empathy. Written by and for engineers. Almost as a after-thought – literally the last sentence of the statement – the Rolls memos assure readers that safety remains the company’s highest priority.

The muted response from Rolls is in stark contrast to both Qantas and Airbus – who built the A380 jet involved in the emergency. As reported by the Wall Street Journal in this article, the Qantas CEO followed the standard airline playbook by being front-and-center in several news conferences and discussing progress in the investigation. Airbus, for its part, put the ball squarely back in Rolls’ court and said it was delaying further A380 deliveries until the engine problem was fully addressed. At the same time, Airbus continues to promote its products and track record through a considerable marketing effort.

Some experts quoted in the media suggest the key to a positive resolution for Rolls is finding an explanation and quick solution to the engine problem, rather than a vigorous public outreach. Rolls’ brand reputation, they posit, is based more on quality and customer service than on any public profile. Other observers say Rolls prefers a robust behind-the-scenes approach that focuses on identifying and fixing problems (and working with partners) rather than providing a stream of public commentary. In other words, the quality of the products and customer service will ultimately protect the brand equity. As one pundit puts it: they have been here before and their approach is “this will pass.” One interesting theory is that Rolls executives became even more gun-shy about public announcements in the wake of the universal criticism of BP executive Tony Heyward. Finally, it’s worth noting there is a fundamental difference between Rolls and Qantas, in that the former sells to companies while the airline interacts directly with customers. It’s a natural tendency for B2B companies to focus on direct communication with their corporate customers than through the public.

Has the Rolls approach worked? It may be too soon to tell, but on one short-term metric – share price – they have failed. Reports this week in several major news outlets – including this one – suggest uncertainty from the crisis has wiped out 10% of Rolls’ share price, or about $1.5 billion of the company’s value.

Though there is merit on focusing on thorough investigation and resolution during a crisis rather than self-serving media activities, Rolls fails to recognize that the debate on its brand and products is now occurring in the public arena. The company’s reluctance to engage in dialogue is creating a vacuum others are only too happy to fill. It is also naive to hide behind the cloak of engineering prowess and focus on direct outreach to corporate customers, since B2C companies like Qantas will certainly consider consumer opinion and brand reputation when selecting their equipment partners. Another lesson some companies have learned the hard way in recent years is that brand reputation is ephemeral – even one with a rich history like Rolls-Royce.

Ultimately, Rolls’ unwillingness to share information and engage in conversation suggests a sense of arrogance and stubbornness that is totally out of sync with prevailing trends on communication and consumer interaction. It will be interesting to see how this all turns out for the major players.

Employees Increasingly Working Around IT

An article in a recent HBR provides more evidence that employees are increasingly using external technology to support their work-related activities. More specifically, many information workers are using consumer technologies – whether they be social, mobile or cloud – to help solve their business and customer problems. A recent survey of 4,000 information workers in the U.S. found that almost 40% are using do-it-yourself technologies without IT’s permission. The author calls this the consumerization of IT, or technology populism.

This trend is an open secret in most companies – staff with rogue iPhones or iPads that aren’t ”supported” by IT; teams using Skype or personal smartphones to conduct video calls; peer conversations occurring on networks like Facebook or Twitter; project collaboration on Google Docs and DropBox; recruitment through sites like LinkedIn…the list goes on. Watching the cat and mouse game is almost comical, though it often leads to frustration on all sides. The reasons for the tech workarounds are varied, but the ultimate rationale is that the newer technology works…and it’s often free and easy to use. Most staff want to do their jobs as efficiently as possible, and with IT often lagging or putting up roadblocks to many innovations, employees are increasingly going outside the firewall for solutions.

The interesting conversation is whether this development is positive – for customers, for employees and for CIOs? The author Ted Shadler suggests that well-intentioned, covert innovators can be very beneficial to the business. But he admits self-serve solutions can create chaos and risk for organizations: It’s all well and good to have employees solving customer problems. But chaos and rogue behavior is not okay. To identify the employee initiatives that are worth pursuing and figure out how to make them safe and enterprise-grade, your IT organization needs to get involved. Shadler says the solution is a new compact between employees, managers and IT where give-and-take replaces turf wars and inertia: Employees need to step up and behave responsibly (which means HR needs to be involved). Business managers need to roll up their sleeves and learn enough about the technology to understand the potential risks. (Managers also need to encourage and reward experimentation.) IT needs to assess and mitigate technology risk. And that means IT staff need to be much closer to business employees and activities so that they can help with technology platforms.

The point I take from this is that trying to stop employees from using innovative technology is a losing battle – even within firewalls. In the face of this trend, IT needs to take the initiative and find workable solutions that balance staff preferences, corporate priorities and IT risk policies. The cost of inaction is not just a lost opportunity to improve business efficiency and customer service, but a corrosive impact on employee morale and engagement.

Is the Web Really Dead?

A recent edition of Fast Company featured a provocative cover story suggesting the Web was heading the way of dinosaurs. I’m not particularly savvy on the technical side so I’m fuzzy on one of the critical distinctions made in the article (the internet being distinct from the Web) but the key point I took from the piece is that the browser has become increasingly irrelevant to the Web experience. The explosion of content delivered through apps, cloud programs and semi-closed or private networks has created an internet experience that is fluid and incredibly diverse. This means not only that the browser has lost relevance, but that we access the internet through a range of mobile, interchangeable devices. The critical lesson, according to the article, is that users will migrate to tools and technology that simply work, reliably and simply.

There was predictable churn about the article – with some saying it was hyperbole (check out this Ragan video interview of NYT writer David Pogue calling the Web demise claim “nonsense) and others that it missed the mark on intranet growth or was weakened by contradictions. More than one comment, in fact, mentioned the irony that much of the debate on the article was taking place on the Web. To Fast Company’s credit, it included contrarian commentaries alongside the cover story.

My favorite take on the argument was a thoughtful analysis by Steve Lohr in the New York Times that shifts the discussion away from the cycle of overblown technology predictions (of imminent demise) and proclamations (about the “next big things”.)  As Lohr puts it, evolution – not extinction – has always been the primary rule of media ecology. Most providers and platforms adapt and survive, and that is not cause for alarm. Lohr’s second key point is that a characteristic of evolution in the Web 2.0 environment is the accelerated pace of change and innovation. The result, he posits, is a proliferation of digital media forms and fast-shifting patters of media consumption.

Once again, I take the discussion back to the central question for me – what does this mean to professional communicators and their clients? The most obvious implication is that failure to remain informed – at minimum – and strategically nimble and innovative – as the ideal – is a ticket to irrelevance. Lazy, static tactical recommendations that may have had a shelf-life years ago now lose their potency within months. Given the pace of evolution in the technology that drives communication, PR staff need to remain educated about trends and tools to provide relevant counsel and support. No need to be on the cutting edge or a tech wizard, but there’s no excuse for being less informed than the average corporate client. Professionals need to have a basic understanding of the new tools and platforms – and the related benefits and implications.

What’s interesting about all these changes is that the fundamental objectives and best practices of communication remain relatively constant – I don’t hear much of a debate about the sustained importance of leadership credibility, audience segmentation, manager outreach or two-way communication.  What is changing is the toolkit at our disposal. That dynamic presents an exciting opportunity – there’s a real charge in working in a business which is reinventing itself – but also a constant challenge.