Never in everyday pursuit of corporate endeavour have so many been force fed by so few.

 

The proliferation of communication channels given the rise of social and technological media means your average employee claims to be nearing communication saturation point. But are they? I would suggest that the appetite for effective communication has never been more keen, yet effective communication is still in very short supply.

 

Lest we forget, communication is essentially an outcome, not an input. As I had to make a point of reminding a group of senior civil servants while running Team Briefing workshops recently, “success isn’t measured by volume, pace or quantity. Good communication is a product of whether the message has been received, understood and has resulted in the necessary action”.

 

For a number of years now, when I’ve conducted communication audits for clients, employees across sectors have complained about being bombarded. Despite the rather trendy discussions about the difference between internal communication and employee engagement, message management and push communication appears to be increasing.The biggest culprit is the dreaded email.

 

The Evils of email Management

 

Having just carried out an audit of internal communication channels for another public sector client currently undergoing major change, I’ve been struck, once again, by a bizarre, and frequently seen contradiction.

 

In answer to the question “How would you prefer to be informed of changes”, a whopping 76% of respondents voted for face to face communication.  Of those 76%, some 68% wanted that communication to come from their immediate line managers.

 

The second preference was for some form of internal social media allowing them the opportunity to provide feedback and debate in an interactive, real time environment.

 

However, when we looked into the Communication Department’s communication method of choice, they prioritised:

 

1. Lunch Meetings with the CEO and senior team
2. email bulletins
3. voicemail
4. publications

 

In fact, as the change programme gathered pace and brought with it “right sizing” and major structure changes, the top two methods fast became the only “official” channels.  Sadly team briefings led by line managers, once a norm, had faded to sporadic bursts.

 

It’s perhaps understandable that a number of line managers and supervisors had taken a backward step when faced with extremely difficult message management.  But in this case, it was soon very clear that abdication on this scale reflected deep-seated leadership issues.  Their CEO, in Hero Leader guise, although well intended, was clearly undermining his leaders. They had also lost faith in their communication function which, disempowered, was simply stepping aside by pressing the forward and cc buttons. 

 

But what’s the problem with push communication?

 

There clearly isn’t a single answer to this question but a glance at this famous learning effectiveness pyramid illustrates the power of face to face interaction with warm-blooded peers. 

 

The simple fact is that top down, cascade bombardments, usually delivered by email these days, are synonymous with lecturing.  They allow the originator to tick an activity box but are largely ineffective and simply reinforce one-way messaging. Cascades create a wider push communication culture as the approach is seen to be sanctioned from the very top.

 

As employee engagement requires:

-         interaction

-         involvement

-         feedback

-         opportunities to check understanding

-         emotional connection

 

by cascading swarms of messages the organisation promises one thing yet delivers another. It’s disingenuous and creates deep seated resentment.

 

Most of us learn much more effectively in interpersonal environments, when we’re involved and can interact with others. This is one of the reasons why line managers and immediate supervisors are increasingly important communicators. When they have the opportunity and take the time to commit to Facetime rather than Facebook, employees are enlightened and reassured by the example being set as well as the opportunity for face-to-face discussion, debate and reflection.

 

We all appreciate the merits of electronic communication. But despite the simple temptation of “compose, click and send” and the sophisticated charms of new-wave social media tools and techniques there really is no replacement for good, old fashioned, face to face, eyeball- to- eyeball communication. This is especially true during testing times when people lose what appetite they may have had for Foie Gras and deeply resent the fact that there’s no comfort food on the menu.

 

Ian Buckingham (ian@by2w.co.uk) is the founder of the Bring Yourself 2 Work Engagement Fellowship www.by2w.co.uk.  He is the author of Brand Engagement – How Employees Make or Break Brands  http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?PID=281268. and Brand Champions (due Oct 2010)

 

 

We’ve reached a critical point of inflection in the war for talent and it’s now time for a paradigm shift if we’re to dominate the moral high ground”(OD Director, UK Financial Services)

I met this chap a couple of years ago – let’s call him Babel.  He proudly wore the label, Head of Organisation Development and worked for a web-based financial services firm which had a reputation for funky marketing.  He represented a truly maverick brand, much heralded for its iconoclastic , irreverent approach but which, unfortunately, also had an alternative financial performance record.  I would show you a copy of their “strategy on a single page” if I could, but suffice to say, looking at it for the first time was rather like being a Victorian explorer faced with a hieroglyphic carving.  The tablet was packed with symbols which might well have been runes and had so many mixed metaphors that it looked like it had been dipped in a vat of cliché .

 He talked proudly of their collaborations with a host of specialist management gurus – although the “tablet” did most of the speaking for him.  They had “absorbed” key thinking indiscriminately rather like a sponge absorbs liquid, and we’re attempting to align their employees behind their OD strategy.  Well they would have done if they managed to translate it for their leaders in the meantime, of course.

In fact, Babel-speak, as it came to be known, became so infamous that the employees had invented a game which they came to call BS Bingo.  An enterprising cultural guerilla had created a spreadsheet populated by the most infamous and prevalent metaphors.  On the internal communication black market, he offered a financial incentive for his contemporaries to seek out, site and mark off those metaphors appearing in officially sanctioned communication within a given period.  The first to spot and report back a “full house” of BS metaphors was awarded the BS Bingo prize.  You were at a distinct advantage if you were a middle manager and attended the Babel-sanctioned conferences and engagement events.

Two years on and Babel left to start up a consultancy, which has since sadly folded.  His former company has just been sold by its parents after years of underperformance and the OD team was severely right-sized a year ago. It didn’t have to be that way as they had some very good ideas.  Sadly, however, they were seduced by compulsive innovation, obfuscated the obvious and forgot to deliver the basics consistently well.   They lost their audience in purple prose.

As we all know, a metaphor’s a figure of speech that uses one thing to mean another and makes a comparison between the two. At their best metaphors add a powerful dimension to communication by conjuring up imagery which, in turn, evokes emotions that help with understanding, empathy and impact. So why are metaphors so abused in the internal communication market?

To find out - take a look at Ian’s chapter in Phillip Kitchen’s book  Marketing: Metaphor and Metamorphosis or drop one of us a line:  theteam@by2w.co.uk

Having just carried out an audit of internal communication channels for a public sector client, I’ve been struck, once again, by a bizarre, and frequently seen contradiction.

In answer to the question “How would you prefer to be informed of changes”, a whopping 76% of respondents voted for face to face communication. Of those 76%, some 68% wanted that communication to come from their immediate line managers.

However, when we looked into the Communication Department’s communication method of choice, they prioritised:
- Lunch Meetings with the CEO and
- email bulletins.

In fact, as the change programme gathered pace and brought with it “right sizing” and major structure changes, these two methods fast became the only “official” channels. Sadly team briefings led by line managers, once a norm, had faded to sporadic bursts.

It’s perhaps understandable that a number of line managers and supervisors had taken a backward step when faced with extremely difficult message management. But in this case, it was soon very clear that abdication on this scale reflected a deep-seated leadership issue. Their CEO, in Hero Leader guise, was clearly undermining them. They had also lost faith in the Board and were simply stepping aside by pressing the forward and cc buttons. These finding were supported by recent employee survey results.

So what’s the problem with communicating by email?

The simple fact is that Top Down, “push” communication, usually delivered by email these days, is synonymous with lecturing. It is largely ineffective and simply reinforces one-way communication.

We all learn much more effectively in interpersonal environments, when we’re involved and can interact with others. This is one of the reasons why line managers and immediate supervisors are increasingly important communicators. Employees are enlightened and reassured by the example being set as well as the opportunity provided for face-to-face discussion, debate and reflection.

We all appreciate the merits of electronic communication and many of us have been seduced by the sensuous curves of the blackberry handheld which seems to share our lives. But despite the simple temptation of “compose, click and send” and the sophisticated charms of new-wave social media tools and techniques there really is no replacement for good, old fashioned, face to face, eyeball- to- eyeball communication, particularly during tricky times.

Ian Buckingham (ian@by2w.co.uk) is the founder of the Bring Yourself 2 Work Engagement Fellowship