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)

I was at a dinner party thrown by a former HR director friend recently and as I arrived at his house was struck by the number of high performance cars on the driveway and then, once I was introduced to his guests, was equally surprised by the fact that most were from the HR community.

Now, I’m not deriding folk for their success. It just took a little getting used to, especially as most of the conversation revolved around the financial benefits associated with acquiring a reputation as a downsizing expert and “being the last one to turn out the lights” before moving on.

It’s clearly wrong to claim that re-sizing has become the raison d’etre of the modern HRD. But this perception wasn’t helped by the dinner party conversation about what it really means to trust and whether trust has any place at work?  

One premise was that the last two years has seen employees’ trust in their organisations fall dramatically and that organisations need to work at ways of re-engaging and re-establishing the psychological contract. The opposite - and prevailing view - was that there are certain things in business that have to remain secret, that being open and honest is often impossible and people should be mature enough to accept that.

The concensus was that trust has no real place at work any longer and that a healthy scepticism should prevail recognising that the employer/employee relationship is “a marriage of convenience”. Neutrality was seen as preferable but is it possible or even desirable to remain neutral in a vocational environment you devote the largest portion of your life to?

I appreciate that many of the HRDs I seem to meet these days are vassels for the process re-engineers and have become de-sensitised to emotions in a similar way to soldiers on the frontline. But is this a reflection of behaviour born of survival or how they really believe things should be?

Trust is a fairly fundamental emotion. If there’s no trust there’s no psychological contract between employees and the employer. Without that there’s no “extra mile” and no relationship development.

I guess you can have a relationship or marriage of convenience based on neutrality, without passion; empathy and drive. But then you can also join Victorian role playing societies to escape from reality.

There’s been much written about employee engagement in recent years as this relatively modern phenomenon continues to evolve from its internal communication roots.

Although often over complicated, the general premise of employee engagement is simple. Individual contributions of employees in the workplace is influenced by the strength of their emotional connection to their employer. The stronger and more positive that connection, the more likely it is that the employee will contribute their best effort for the sake of their organization or brand.

At its core, EE is based upon reciprocity. The employer works to create a work environment that is satisfying and rewarding for employees and stimulates their emotions and higher order needs. It literally invites them to bring themselves to work and become similarly invested (engaged) in their organisations long-term success. The concept is fairly simple to grasp, but not necessarily easy to implement.

One of the challenges is that emotional connections can be difficult to define and measure and are prone to shift in response to changes in the work environment. More confounding is that these relations are influenced by multiple variables (line management relationships, organizational mission and values, workload, peer relationships, etc.).

Add to this the cost/resource challenges created by the worst recession since the Great Depression and the fact that EE is reliant on discretionary budgets and EE as a business strategy can quickly become a “nice to have” in the good times.

These challenges aside, engagement as a strategy is not only important, but vital, especially in a climate of economic uncertainty, to the long-term viability of most business enterprises. According to a proprietary report just completed by the University of Akron’s Centre for Organizational Research, engaged employees tend to:

• Be more satisfied with their jobs
• Be more likely to stay with their employer even when other opportunities emerge
• Be more tolerant of (perceived) temporary economic hardships due to the economy
• Bring a consistently higher level of commitment, creativity and energy to their jobs
• Demonstrate higher levels of “good citizenship” behaviours both at and away from work

As a general rule, it’s safe to say that most employees are not engaged with their employers right now. In fact, the most recent Conference Board survey in the US found that only 45% of employees currently report being satisfied with their jobs (the lowest since the survey was started in 1987). As many as 60% indicate that they plan to actively seek new employment sometime in 2010.

Can Employee engagement really be reserved as “nice to do” strategy for when times are good? Employees are smart and quickly spot insincerity. In tough times, resorting to push communication cloaked in the trappings of engagement is like washing the car and then parking it under a tree full of pigeons.

WASP males don’t tend to get too many invitations to be involved in the promotion of diversity management; which is a shame really.  I’m a firm believer in the notion that the promotion of diversity should embrace the full range of stakeholders; it should truly practice inclusiveness in the way stakeholders are engaged with the philosophy or it runs the risk of being seen as a marginal activity aimed at an exclusive audience.  A “push” communication approach may be one of the reasons why the diversity flag bearers within organisations sometimes find themselves struggling for real influence at the top table.

But this thought piece isn’t to critique the notion of diversity or challenge its increasing relevance to the organisation development and employee engagement agenda. I would like to share a rare moment of Belgian enlightenment.

Picture the scene.  The wonderful and irrepressibly inspirational Myrtha Casanova of the The European Institute for Managing Diversity had enlisted my help to co-facilitate a workshop she was running with the senior executives of a global producer of cereal crops and foodstuffs.  They had been embroiled in a PR war with NGOs and pressure groups worldwide because of controversial growing techniques and what was perceived as an arrogant communication stance.

The workshops were intended to develop diversity strategies across their global businesses.  Most of their senior executives were gathered in Belgium to that end – and they weren’t very pleased about it.

It was soon clear that their beleaguered HR Director had been forced into developing a diversity strategy by the board who were in turn responding to US legislation.  The executive cadre encamped in Belgium were 90% male, mostly of Anglo Saxon origin and frankly, felt they had much more pressing priorities.  In short, the workshops quickly regressed into trench warfare.

The turning point came, however, shortly after lunch on day one when, rather than push more and more statistics, facts and process at the group, we adopted a less evangelical approach and asked them to explore their brand from the customer’s perspective. 

They had traditionally seen themselves as a business to business organisation but it took one of the more junior managers, who also happened to have the largest team and who also happened to be a woman, to point out that housewives could make or break their company.  By drawing a simple supply chain model she was able to quickly illustrate the route their product ultimately followed to market and how it was immaterial that they weren’t putting the bread on the shelves themselves. Women still make the vast majority of purchasing decisions per household and the retailers were reliant upon their suppliers to provide raw materials in tune with the ethics and values of the consumer.  An epiphany!

This simple, jaw-dropping moment proves to be a revelation for her cynical peers who had clearly spent years developing competencies and promoting values appropriate for managing their equally macho purchasing managers in the businesses they were selling to.  Suddenly the link between organisational culture and their PR problems was put into stark relief. More importantly, they realised that, without a more representative management structure they would make similar mistakes.  The business case for diversity had become clear and the rest of the session was put to productive use developing a central and local diversity policy, strategy and engagement approach which owed much to a loaf of bread!

If you want to find out more about the EIMD (a not for profit organisation founded in 1996, with headquarters in Barcelona and which operates across the European Union), take a look at their website http://www.iegd.org/englishok/who.htm

Or feel free to drop me a line and I’ll tell you more about this and similar stories.

Ian@by2w.co.uk

Legacy is a loaded term. If you’re the glass half empty type it smacks of “ old fashioned, out of date, redundant”. If you favour the glass half full approach you’ll make associations like “firm foundations; proven track record and relationship equity” when you hear this term.

As a brand and engagement specialist, I’m acutely aware that one of the strongest but often most underappreciated assets many Old World brands have is their legacy. In times of crisis and change it can be comforting to employees to know that this organisation has withstood worse in the past.

As individuals, we seem to be increasingly interested in notions of legacy, family heritage – where we come from. The Haka, the famous tribal dance of the feared New Zealand rugby team literally attempts to summon up the spirits of the ancestors of the combatants to provide strength and courage as they face a new challenge. Perhaps this was what organisations like Walmart have tried to replicate with their company songs or may explain the communal song and dance rituals at employee conferences?

Now this overt attempt to conjure up corporate spirit isn’t to everyone’s taste. It illustrates the point that employee engagement has to be fit for purpose within local employee markets. But by mentioning what some may consider to be “naff” engagement initiatives that are puzzlingly powerful mutu for others does beg the question “what are you doing to engage your employees during the downturn”?

It comes as little surprise to me that I’ve seen a rise in the number of complaints from employees across sectors about the availability of their line managers.  There has also been a decline in face to face communication like Team Briefings and a rise in what I term e-mail management. When they can’t come up with answers to tricky issues many line managers are choosing to lie low.

In these dark days, leaders need to call upon all of their resources to speed up the recovery process. If your brand has a legacy, what initiatives are you undertaking to make the most of that heritage to provide confidence, assurance and a sense of stability?  Most importantly, how are your most important communicators, your line managers, being recognised and utilised as the eyes, ears and voice of the business?

This piece first appeared in print Q1 2008…………….

Critics claim we’re facing an imminent recession. The signs aren’t great when the marketing advice from commentators like the Harvard Business School professor, John Quelch* is that companies should focus on family values rather than appealing to conspicuous consumption. It’s pretty unpalatable stuff to stomach for a society dominated by consumerism. But, ironically, anyone who cares about internal communication should sit up and take note.

While researching Brand Engagement and the pending sequel, Brand Champions, my aim has been to expose the obsession with the material manifestations of brand and to identify and articulate the true behavioural DNA of a brand. I know that authentic brands are more than promises made to employees and staff. They’re about promises delivered. And I know from my own experience of running businesses that there’s nothing quite like tough economic conditions to sharpen focus.

Whatever the rhetoric of the internal marketing zealots may imply and despite what manages may sometimes believe, organisations have little choice other than to rely upon their people to give something of themselves if they’re to connect with the organisation, their peers and customers alike. This is tricky to achieve at the best of times but especially elusive when economic conditions turn sour.

Having worked across sectors in the internal communication and engagement fields for nearly twenty years, it’s frustrating to hear the persistent language of alignment. The conviction that some form of corporate internal media is the way forward is depressing. It reminds me of the culture which dominated institutionalised post war media and led to the phenomenon of pirate radio which emerged as a reaction to the establishment stranglehold of state owned communication. In the UK, Radio Caroline has become the literal flagship for iconoclastic broadcasting http://www.radiocaroline.co.uk/history1.asp.

It’s my firm conviction that corporate engagement can’t be conscripted. Internal media which is out of touch with the true culture of the organisation may dominate the internal airwaves but sadly few people truly listen in.
Unfortunately, one of the side effects of tough market conditions is that the language of corporate command and control increases as does the tendency to focus on “push” communication as managers struggle to cope.

Whether we’re faced with a market downturn or not, the internal communication community has a pivotal role to play in ensuring that employees engage with the brand. Irrespective of market conditions, I would argue that clarity about brand can never be a bad thing especially if it’s based upon authentic dialogue and trust.

If you agree, try the following five tips for bridging the engagement gap:

1. Always role model an open door policy, especially in turbulent times. If in doubt, increase consultation. It’s an unfortunate fact that managers tend to adopt a “laager mentality” when faced with problems. It’s the worst thing they can do. Ignorance breeds insecurity which in turn breeds misunderstanding - the sibling of poor performance.

2. Be honest with your people and really emphasise the personal qualities needed in tough times, the type of culture that is needed to thrive in adversity. I’ve consulted in a number of downsizing situations and this is a proven way of giving people some sense of control over their fate. Regardless of the outcomes of tough trading conditions, when people come out the other side of a downturn, whether they were directly impacted or not, they are always grateful for straight, empathic but honest talking

3. Take the temperature more frequently. Measure the impact of internal communication constantly via concentrated pulse takes rather than with cumbersome, seemingly expensive surveys

4. Seek out and promote positive role models and good news stories. Whatever the conditions, they will be there.

5. Don’t underestimate the power of core values. A downturn is just the time to reflect on the reassurance of a legacy which implies that “we’ve been here before, we’ve survived and even thrived”

Quelch points out that “when economic hard times loom….we tend to retreat to our village….as uncertainty prompts us to stay at home and also stay connected with family and friends”. Clearly internal communication has a vital role to play in keeping those communities informed, in recognizing their core motivators, consulting with them and in setting the tone. But lose touch with the core audience and don’t be surprised if employees seize the airwaves themselves. Pirate radio anyone?

*Financial Times February 18, 2008

Biog

For those of you who don’t know him, Ian Buckingham is the author of Brand Engagement – How Employees Make or Break Brands http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?PID=281268 and is currently working on the sequel Brand Champions.

It’s easy to dwell on examples of negative customer service. But how often do we stop and think about the people behind a positive interaction with an organisation or a brand? On the occasions when we do receive exceptional customer service, however, chances are we will have met an Engaged Employee.

Engaged Employees are:

1.     Obvious – it may be an elusive quality, difficult to describe but an engaged employee is more likely to be exhilarated by their role.  Different cultures show this in different ways but most of us can spot and will be drawn to a genuine smile and welcoming, inclusive attitude.

2.     Authentic – our recent survey of almost 4000 communicators listed “being yourself” as one of the key motivators for employees.  It also proves that employees who are themselves in the workplace are more effective. Employees who are clear enough about what their organisation stands for and are at ease with the culture are more likely to bring themselves to work and to share stories about their family lives, hobbies, likes and dislikes.

3.     Receptive – we all know that if we’re engaged, we’re far more open to opportunities to be involved with new initiatives and share new experiences.  Engaged employees listen actively and offer support and challenge, largely because they care about the outcomes.

4.     Involved - they are part of the programme not recipients of it.   They feel they can influence their personal fate through influencing the fate of the organisation. Involvement leads to a greater sense of ownership. It’s also the way most of us learn best.

5.     Proactive – engaged employees understand the goals, culture and values of the organisation so they make suggestions or take initiative, even innovate for the greater good, without being asked. Their primary focus is on adding value to the organisation rather than obsessing about what the organisation gives them.

6.     Energised – engaged employees have correspondingly high energy levels.  They do things and maintain appropriate momentum. They are the heartbeat, rather than their managers, and they set the pace.

7.     Achievers – because of enhanced levels of understanding, clear goals and boundaries, an appropriate mix of support and challenge (and in light of the characteristics above), they tend to be focused and, therefore, more productive. The things they do tend to get results.

8.     Advocates – whether at conferences or recruitment fairs even dinner parties or sitting next to you on a plane , engaged employees are proud and happy to recommend the organisation and to represent the brand. Want to know how engaged your employees are?  As a starting point, find out how many buy/use your products.

9.     Ceos - they are chief engagement officers. They inspire others by example. They are communication role models in all stakeholder engagements whether with customers, fellow employees, competitors or even shareholders.

10.  In demand - take care, engaged employees are a precious commodity. The war for talent rages irrespective of market conditions. Who and where are your ceos?  What measures are you taking to clarify your employer brand and to engage and manage your talent?

Yes, we’re in the middle of  global recession. Yes, this is an employer’s market.  But remember, your brand is the sum of your customer’s interactions with your people and in a downturn this simple truth becomes all the more salient. So what are you doing to engage your employees and are you valuing your brand engagement role models as highly as you should be?

Ian

As the Lloyds/TSB/HBOS shareholders attest, massive change is upon us.  And there’s nothing quite like the threat of change to test the metal of your leaders.  If leadership is partly about inspiring a community of individuals to undertake a collective endeavour, then stories are essential to articulate that vision. Noel Tichy in his book The Leadership Engine remarks that

“the best way to get humans to venture into unknown terrain is to make that terrain familiar and desirable by taking them there first in their imagination”

And Antoine de Saint Exupéry remarked that

“if you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea”

When a leader inspires, he or she breathes life and energy into their followers. When we reflect on the extraordinarily motivating speeches Churchill made, it’s clear that no amount of PowerPoint (had it existed) and no amount of consultancy or accountancy models would ever have had the effect of his well chosen words. And Martin Luther King had a dream, he didn’t have a change goal and wasn’t at a critical point of inflection. Or was he?

The results of a study at the London Business School show how much of the message we retain depending on the vehicle of communication.

• Statistics = 5-10%
• Statistics and Story = 25-30%
• Story = 65-70%

And the moral of this story is that if you are delivering the ‘Who we are’ (Brand Identity), ‘this is where we’re going’ (Mission/vision), and ‘this is how we’re going to get there’ (strategy)’ piece, then don’t rely too much on statistics alone to land the message.

Business, emotion and non-sensory language (or why so many business speakers are frighteningly uninspiring)

Change may be scary but there’s nothing more terrifying than uncertainty and vagueness.

Do you remember the strapline to the ‘80’s movie ‘Alien’? ‘In space no one can hear you scream’. These few words create an image (space), a sound (screaming) and a feeling (not a very nice feeling). Compare it with ‘dedicated management capability’ or ‘randomised user-orientated response’ – These are non-sensory words, and they abound in the corporate world. Now, if you put enough of these non-sensory words together you will trip something in the listener’s brain and a film and a fog will appear before their eyes as they fall asleep or escape into daydream. These non-sensory words are the vocabulary of science, borrowed in business to give a veneer of credibility (‘it must be true, it sounds scientific’) Somehow we are not reassured by too much feeling or emotion in business. After all, the language of love, romance, of the emotional life is the language of metaphor (‘shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?…). This language excites the imagination; it creates feelings, images, sounds, smells. Remember your first kiss? The first record you bought? The smell of coffee roasting? The visual imagery of being surrounded by your loved ones? Often we believe that these feeling, these emotions, cloud and corrupt the experiment and enterprise we call business. Yet if you want to tell me about values, like trust and integrity, don’t give me the science or the text-book definition, give me the metaphor, give me comparisons to help me understand, give me examples, tell me the story.

 Getting the story straight: The Hero’s Journey

The most effective and versatile storytelling tool must be The Hero’s Journey. There is no space to do justice to it here, but by way of a simple explanation, the Hero’s Journey represents the central narrative that underlies any story of growth or change regardless of cultural origin. It is a framework which allows an organisation, team or individual to examine past and present change, both personal (largely emotional) and corporate (largely rational) and to anticipate and explore future change. Applied as a change management tool it can be a hugely effective way of making sense of  and embracing change.

But as senior leaders tumble, where will the heroes who will lead your people through these turbulent times come from?  Well, they’re all around you.  But sometimes it needs a little external facilitation and support to help you find them.

It’s a while since the ancient art of “tug o’ war” featured in the Olympics, but it’s alive and well in a boardroom near you.  Internal communication, that golden thread between employees and customers, is starting to take the strain!

According to a Melcrum study back in 2006 which compared the generic site of the internal communication function between 2003 and 2006, there’s a very real “heave ho” taking place between HR and Corporate Communication to control the internal communication strings. 

During the period in question, 44% of corporate communication functions across the multi-sector survey claimed to include internal communication among their reporting lines.  This was a 14% increase in three years. The HR figures were roughly half that amount, but increased by 10% over the same period.  It is also evident that, in that time, a number of HR functions were attempting to sweep internal communication into the employee engagement and industrial relations pot.

The growth in the demand for control over internal communication within HR and Corporate Comms was apparently at the expense of functions like the office of the CEO, Organisation Development and Marketing. I believe that’s a worrying trend.

These figures become most interesting, however, when seen in the context of a 2005 study by the same organisation (see Buckingham, Brand Engagement, Palgrave/Macmillan 2007 )* which reports that where organisations claim to have a formal employee engagement programme, 67% claim that this falls within HR, 55% attribute engagement to Internal Communication as a distinct function and 27% claim it is the responsibility of their Organisation Development function.  There’s no mention of Corporate Comms which is worrying when you consider that employee engagement is, in effect, the highly evolved form of internal communication at the opposite end of the spectrum from tactical “push” communication campaigns.

Now the more statistically astute of you will have detected that the figures in the last paragraph don’t add up to 100%.  And that’s the crux of this argument. Internal communication is not simple message management controlled by the HR or Corporate Comms function.  Truly evolved internal communication requires partnerships across the business functions and professional collaboration which is why so many departments believe that employee engagement, its most glamorous manifestation, falls within their remit.

Unfortunately, take a look at the recruitment press and it becomes clear that the internal communication profession is still dominated by message managers.  Where’s the glamour in owning the intranet and newsletters? 

The cream of the profession, however, are skilled engagement specialists with solid, credible business pedigree who are as comfortable in the newsroom as they are in the boardroom. They have the respect of their executive peers given that the best internal communication role models a partnership mentality. 

Internal communication should bring together the key people disciplines to ensure a clear and consistent representation of the vision, strategy, goals and employment brand.  That’s why any formal engagement programme needs to evolve out of what I call an engagement axis!  If too closely aligned to any 1 department it becomes subjugated to and inevitably falls foul of issue cherry-picking and internal politics (creatives vs pragmatists vs authenticity vs budget hunters etc).

It’s time we all afforded Internal Communication and the respect it deserves and credible practitioners similar kudos.  It’s vital to the management of the brand, employee motivation and retention, innovation and ultimately customer service, needs to be led by specialist practitioners and must be properly funded by budgeted not discretionary spend. 

Come to think of it, that just might be why so many of the internal generals are bracing their backs and tugging at that rope!

I’m intrigued to hear about the fun and games where you work.

Would it surprise you to learn that the most senior communications professional within one of the leading petro chemical companies currently uses sensitive state of the art IT technology to monitor webinar and teleconference effectiveness and participation?  

Would you be shocked to hear that one of the most high profile government departments has the slickest team briefing process you’ll ever read or that  one of Europe’s leading utility companies has the highest intranet and so called “social media” involvement rates you’re ever likely to see? 

I guess we all expect major corporates and professional organisations to be at the forefront of internal communication management. So why is it that each of these organisations came bottom in a recent cross industry employee engagement poll? 

The bare faced truth of the matter is that, despite their focus on state of the art technology and exceptional process design, they just don’t get the basics right.  

The petro chemical company has no top level communications calendar, their intranet is an over-burdened supertanker which has run aground on a reef of indifference and employees have started voting with their feet at Town Halls held by their senior leaders. 

The government department employed an expensive creative agency to develop their team briefing collateral but thousands of worthy, well-meaning newsletters are casually cast aside. Forgotten, forlorn and unread because the newsletter content ignores the interests of the audience they have:

-         no explicit link to strategic objectives

-         they discourage feedback from readers

-         they are full of self-congratulatory spin and HR propaganda

 -        they fail to acknowledge the real issues

-         and they lack humanity and authenticity.  

Their team briefing process has become a written cascade because their senior civil servants find it difficult to overcome the traditional hierarchical structure and few have the skills and ability to engage effectively with their line reports. 

Each organisation talks about “inverting the pyramid” and bringing the employee voice to the fore.  But in the admirable pursuit of internal communication excellence they’ve lost sight of the basics and the employee voice is more of a nervous whisper. 

An interesting contrast comes in the unlikely form of a technology company I’ve had the pleasure of working with over the past few years and have watched grow both in the UK and globally. They are true innovators and leaders in the field of technology driven customer communication yet their own intranet is only an afterthought in their ten strong internal communication channel strategy. 

Their directors strive constantly to ensure that they and their line managers work in partnership to prioritise:

 -  global face to face communication and only host webinars and teleconferences as an absolute last resort

-    communication skills training and include employee engagement in their line manager’s performance contracts

-   fundamental communication skills courses in their management development programme including writing and personal impact skills

-   storytelling structures in the way they communicate the evolution of the brand both internally and externally

-    best practice in the way they facilitate their team briefing sessions

-    face to face conferences, events and induction processes and refuse to communicate by email bulletin cascades

-     achieving balance between process management and culture development

It’s refreshing to see that the most effective approach to internal communication is to get the basics right first and foremost. In these austere times it’s just as good to be reminded that, with a professional internal communication team in place, much of the above can be achieved relatively cheaply.  

We all love a flash new toy or two but whether you can afford it or not, whatever you do don’t develop a case of technology envy at the expense of promoting classic skills. With an objective nudge in the right direction and the modest investment of time, easily financed by a relatively simple re-focus of learning and development priorities, there really shouldn’t be any need to re invent the wheel.