What does it take to be a bridge builder?
I’ve always thought that communicators are essentially bridges. They provide a link between audiences; it’s a role that requires a deep understanding of both sides. Thinking of yourself as a bridge stops people confusing shouting for PR.
But, it also strikes me that not everyone is equipped or allowed to do the job.
It applies to all comms roles
Whether you work in media relations or change communications, the bridge metaphor seems to work pretty well.
Our job is to explain one group of people to another. A press officer has to know what a journalist is interested in and how they’ll react but they also have to know their own organisation well enough to explain it. A financial PR helps analysts see what their client is trying to achieve and an internal communicator knows the workforce, its tastes, its fears and its hopes well enough to explain things in terms that make sense to them.
But crucially, the traffic has to go both ways
The media specialist can explain why the press are going to lambast a particular strategy and the IC manager should be able to point out which policies won’t work. It’s not about explaining what’s going to be unpopular; it’s about highlighting that your audience can see things that are not always obvious to anyone else.
We’ve all had the experience of staff telling management that a new brand or product is doomed to failure. And although not everyone gets the experience of management actually listening it’s our job to be on hand to be the conduit for the feedback.
And, as debate about the meaning of engagement continues to roll on, professionals who see the importance of affective and participative connections are especially concerned with the value of deep audience understanding.
Being the preferred crossing route
Smart communications pros know that they are not the only way to cross between two sides. Senior leaders will have their own channels to reach staff and good journalists will have their own contacts inside an organisation regardless of the efforts of the press office to control access.
But when people feel the need to find their own crossing points they open themselves and their organisation to a variety of risks. Managers with back channels to the media might not know the real story. Talking down the pub to analysts can be an open invitation to regulatory investigation and things quickly get out of control when an Executive Team starts speculating about workforce understanding based on a few chats with their PA and the guy who guards the car park.
A comms manager can’t and shouldn’t hope to suppress all unofficial communications. Yet they need to make connections that are trusted and valued.
Five essential capabilities
Nearly a decade ago Sue Dewhurst and I asked internal communicators what skills and experience they needed to do their jobs well. Some of the answers we got seemed to apply equally well to communications regardless of the specialism. Building and maintain a robust bridge relies on a few essential capabilities.
• It’s about the business
Communication should have an impact on real issues and objectives. A communicator who can’t tell you what keeps the Board awake at night isn’t likely to be solving any problems or adding value
• Make data your friend
Having evidence to back up your hunches saves a lot of grief and points communication in the right direction. The days when idle speculation could be passed off as a measured strategy are long gone.
Being a data-rational communicator isn’t terribly challenging; it’s a question of having ways to listen to your audiences, understanding the difference between process and results and presenting your findings in a way that aids decision-making.
• Execution, execution, execution
A beautifully drawn plan of a bridge isn’t of much use; communicators are in the business of actually making things happen.
• Right tools for the job
Great communicators have a wide repertoire of tools for connection their audiences. A mix of channels to push out information, to listen to reaction, to stimulate collaboration and to generate excitement are all part of the kitbag.
• Being a black-belt at relationship building
We’ve all cringed in job interviews when the candidate says he or she is a ‘people person’ but it does matter. In the 2016 European Communications Monitor it comes out as one of the top skills needed by senior leaders and when Sue and I did our research we were told that star communicators worked well with people regardless of their status, were adept at using personal influence, were great negotiators and were connected across their organisations.
Of course, there are other competencies required for comms folks – Sue and I uncovered a core set of 12 and the IABC offers six essential principles – but I wanted to highlight the idea that we all need be bridges and that has implications for our capabilities.
When I think about the amazing people I’ve worked with over the years in change communications; my heroes are all brilliant connectors. And for many it wasn’t an innate ability but they found that working at it, getting out and about and striking up conversations paid off in a way that few other capabilities would.
Calling the right tune with internal communication?
Too often, internal communication is seen as just another branch of reputation management. But communication directors are increasingly using it to underline their role as strategic advisors.
Logging onto some PR consultancy websites is likely to give you a limited idea of what internal communication is all about. You’ll find talk of “every employee [being] a global broadcaster for their organisation” and the news that “now more than ever, a company’s employees are one of the most trusted sources of information”.
Surely employee communication is more than another way to boost your external reputation? Is the need for more robust external channels the only reason for its rising importance on the communication director’s agenda? Or is building a powerful brand or maintaining a good name the only tune that the PR department is interested in playing?
Clearly, communications directors today know that they have to have a wider repertoire than old-fashioned media relation. Consistently internal communication is one of the top concerns when communications directors are surveyed by bodies like the EACD. They are debating how they should orchestrate their teams to meet the rising expectations of their peers around the executive table, expectations for value that goes beyond keeping the press happy.
Choose from five objectives
From working with organisations of all shapes and sizes I have concluded that there are probably about five good reasons for good employee communication; advocacy is just one.
Pretty well every good internal communication operation sets out to either give employees a sense of belonging, encourage them to collaborate, make sure that they understand what is expected of them and how they are performing, encourage them to embrace change and say favourable things outside work. And of course, in virtually every country in the world, employers are legally obliged to communicate about a number of issues such as safety or workplace rights.
Normally we say there are five main reasons for having an internal communication operation:
- Persuading people to stay because they are a valued part of a brand, community or an organisation that does important work;
- Building a community that works in harmony;
- Helping staff to work better because they understand what is needed and are excited about it;
- Encouraging them to be advocates;
- Motivating people to change
Most organisations concentrate on just a couple of these core objectives – attempting to deliver them all is not realistic
Not every internal communication team has to be excellent at all five of these roles; it’s a matter of knowing what your organisation needs.
If you are in an industry, such as oil and gas, with acute and stifling skills shortages, your goal might be to promote employee retention. In a sector such as technology or telecoms where rapid innovation and collaborative problem solving is essential, you might focus on promoting collaboration. Clarity of instruction may be your priority where there are issues around quality, customer service or regulation. And, periodically, every organisation needs help with transformation.
“It’s a matter of knowing what your organisation needs.”
And when a team starts thinking about its results or impact, rather than seeing itself as a production house, it has to think about the skills and activities that are going to matter. When the focus is on broadcasting information, having reliable channels dominates; shift attention onto business results such as employee retention, greater innovation or better quality and the team has to broaden the scope of its work.
What’s in your value chain?
The communication director who has her or his sights set on more than running an internal newsroom needs to manage a wide range of skills and capabilities. Naturally some things are core, such as the ability to transmit information or craft speeches and presentations for leaders, but when the emphasis shifts to results rather than products so do the resources of the team.
Having looked at communications functions over many years we have developed a general model for a ‘communication value chain’. Whilst every organisation will approach the issue in different ways, we see that there are some common elements that recur regardless of sector or location.
At its core is always a reliable engine room staffed by skilled experts and crafts people. An internal communication department that lacks the capacity to deliver quality collateral is widely thought to be insurmountable weak.
The internal communication value chain:
Excellent internal communication teams that are focused on delivering business value operate across a range of activities that begin with a deep understanding of audiences and draws in the wider aims of the organisation as well as the need for clear and potent messages. Delivering robust tools and channels are an important part of a much bigger story.
This will involve having channels that reach everyone and providing a platform for feedback, offering mechanisms for supporting leadership communication and having the capacity to support campaigns and initiatives as required.
Yet, teams also need to understand the organisation and its strategic problems. The role of a trusted advisor implies seeking out business problems and proposing solutions rather than awaiting a brief from another function; a brief which might already defines (or limits) the value which communication could bring.
Being a strategic communications function is more than about doing things well; its about knowing the real issues and defining how communications helps; it’s not about taking orders, it’s about conducting the orchestra.
Everyone’s an expert
The communication director’s task isn’t helped by the possibility that everyone thinks they are an expert at internal communication. Whilst senior managers know that dabbling in media relations can have career-ending consequences, nothing stops them calling for crazy programmes for staff communications or proposing a strategy that they claim worked brilliantly at their last organisation.
But no orchestra plays well when there are multiple conductors.
Taking hold of the baton is easiest when data is brought to the conversation. Communication teams that take seriously the task of intelligence and fact gathering seem to enjoy higher levels of respect and freedom than their peers without an independent and reliable understanding of what internal audiences thing and how they react.
“No orchestra plays well when there are multiple conductors.”
We therefore begin and end our value chain with the idea that a communication director is the boss’s trusted informant on employee sentiment and can explain how communication is affecting the results that the directors are trying to achieve. Our advice to communication directors walking into the CEO’s office is always to bring data and to leave with respect.
Over the last decade CEOs and senior leaders have increasingly acknowledged that they can not succeed without a workforce that is informed and excited. Executive who do not recognise the role of internal communication are rapidly dying out. And their extinction leaves room for the communication director to move ever faster from broadcaster to strategic value creator.
Originally published on Communication Director on August 3 2016.
Three things communicators can tell you about Brexit
Watching the unfolding Brexit situation in the last few days, I’m reminded of three lessons that any experienced change communicator will have learnt.
Whilst you shouldn’t draw too many parallels between states and corporations in transition, there are some similarities that our leaders do well to bear in mind.
-
Are we divided or are we united?
If you force people to make a binary choice you will always get a strange view of their attitudes. Anyone who has worked with opinion data will know that humans are an incredibly diverse bunch and judging a population on the basis of a crude in or out vote is always misleading.
Years of running employee surveys in the face of change have taught me that a 50:50 split in attitudes could mean a number of things.
It could imply that everyone is implacably opposed to each other; there may be well defined battle lines. The referendum result could be interpreted as evidence that the UK is deeply divided society, ready to start a civil war.
But the reality is often very different.
If you offer people a scale on which to explain their attitudes you can get a very different picture. Where people have very similar views you will see them clustering around the middle of the range. But if you reduce the choice down to a simple yes or no, or a remain or a leave you create a false impression of rigid opposition when people actually mostly see eye to eye and have only subtle disagreements.
Without hard data about the nuances of why people voted as they did, we should be wary of claims about what the Brexit mandate really extends to. All we know is that Brits think we should leave the EU – everything else is moot.
-
You promised what people THINK you promised
Within hours of the result, politicians were explaining that they hadn’t made promises about the speed of the exit, the diversion of funds into the Health Service and even whether or not migration would be curtailed. Although they might be able to explain they that they personally didn’t make a specific promise, that probably won’t wash.
When you work in communication you learn pretty early on that it’s not you said that matters; it’s what people felt you were expressing that counts.
I worked in a company where no one had had a pay rise for years. But when the HR Director said he needed a review to address some salary discrepancies, all people heard was the word “review”. And when a HRD announces a pay review people expect there to be a pay hike.
It was a pretty impossible job trying to explain that the HR team wasn’t led by a crew of untrustworthy promise-breakers.
If politicians were happy to let people believe that there would be a funding bonanza for hospitals, that entry to the UK would require a visa and that the UK would be out faster than England exits Euro2016, it’s going to be hard to look honest in the coming months.
-
It’s not over until it’s over
Time and again I have worked on corporate transformation programmes that changed their scope multiple times. The goals you announce at the start of the transformation are rarely the same after a few months; as events unfold, as problems develop and opportunities emerge, leaders always shift the goalposts.
Experience teaches me that with a two year timetable for Brexit, almost anything could happen. The EU might collapse, Donald Trump might start a trade war, the two main British Political parties might self destruct and the possible demise of the City of London could give Brexit a very different meaning.
I’m sure experienced communicators around the world are already pointing out 101 other lessons that could be applied to the transformation of the UK.
After just three days I know that few of the things we are hearing now will be relevant in a few week. Brits will all turn out to be consensus-driven after all; politicians who were happy to mislead will be punished by their electorates. And, most significantly, the outcome we end up will be very different from anything any of us expected.
Three narratives to explain change
Events in the UK around BREXIT have reminded me of the idea that there are three common narratives around change.
My friend Tony Quinlan first explained it to me and I’ve often used it to help decision-makers think long and hard about how they wish to communicate. But it’s a concept that challenges your fundamental rationale for change and reinforces the role of the communicator as more than wordsmith.
Narrative #1 – We’re victims; we have no choice but to change
I wonder if there’s a manager anywhere that has never used this line with their team. It’s so easy to say:
“We’ve been let down by the bosses, what choice do we have…?”
or
“I know it’s a bad idea, but that’s what the board in its wisdom wants so let’s get on with it…”
There’s a corporate version of the victim narrative as well. It goes something like:
“We’re trapped by the market/government decisions/the referendum vote…we just have to make the best of it…”
The temptation to use the victim narrative can be very powerful. It doesn’t challenge our audience too much and plays up to a cynical world view. When people are angry or frustrated, a story of powerlessness in the face of overwhelming force is easy to sell.
And it can get results; well at least in the short term.
It doesn’t ask for masses of long-term effort; all it requires is a drive to get through the immediate pressure.
But longer-term who wants to work for a self-pitying organisation. Used often enough the victim narrative provokes staff attrition.
And it can’t be good for things like customer service or overall business performance. After all, who cares if you’re making an extra effort?
Narrative #2 – Let’s smash the competition!
Overcoming a foe of some kind appeals to many leaders. As a communication strategy it encourages some of the worst sporting cliché’s or references to military leadership.
But it is very powerful. People like to be winners or to feel that they are engaged in a struggle with someone they can picture.
It’s a narrative that isn’t just available to commercial organisations; charities often talk about winning a bigger share of donation government organisations might secretly campaign for a larger slice of the budget.
Of course it can have some drawbacks.
Obsessing about a single objective can lead to other challenges being ignored. Sales at all costs might result in lower margins, falling quality or worrying slips in safety. Some people are just not motivated by the idea of competition and so might struggle to rise to the challenge of being the best selling or might feel uncomfortable pretending to ignore the virtues of the other team.
Narrative #3 – We’re going to save the world
Perhaps the most powerful storyline is the idea that we’re all striving to change the world for the better. And best of all it is actually available to virtually every organisation.
I learned the truth of this years ago when I was running focus group for a gang of welders on a factory that built construction equipment. When I asked a general question about what made it special to work there I didn’t get the answers I expected about the modern facilities, the better than average pay or the family feel of the place.
The welders either said
“I build JCB equipment – ‘JCB’ is in the English Dictionary because we’re the people who invented the backhoe loader…”
or
“Whenever I see a disaster in the world, I see one of our yellow diggers in the background helping out; it could be a digger that I made…”
People seem to have a natural desire to find the deeper purpose in their work. And you don’t have to be a pharmaceutical company finding a cure for cancer to have the right to talk about changing the world.
Starbucks talks about changing the world “one cup at a time” and banks talk about helping people build their lives.
As long as your ambition is honestly felt it’s a credible message.
Naturally if your core business is selling carcinogenic products or producing ever more chemicals than will pollute rivers you have to be careful how far you take the idea that you are a force for good in the world.
And I accept that this might be an Anglo-Saxon perspective. I was recently met with puzzled faces in France when I suggested a messaging strategy for a company around the concept of being “in business for good”.
But make it real
But when contemplating change, my experience is that more can be achieved by looking for the underlying benefit rather than bemoaning the hopelessness of your situation. However, I have learnt one crucial lesson.
If the narrative is purely an invention of the communications department and has no foundation in leadership thinking and company policy then it is doomed to failure. When rhetoric is out of step with the real intention of the organisation people will quickly see a “save the world” strategy for the cynical attempt at manipulation that it really is.
Yet perhaps this is a brilliant opportunity for communications professionals to show that we’re not just spin doctors, but have a real contribution to make to defining the fundamental direction and purpose of change in our organisations.
Originally posted on LinkedIn on July 4 2016.
Transformation communications – it’s a long haul
What happens after the big announcement? How do you avoid periods of long silence during transformation programmes asks Liam FitzPatrick.
Transformations seem to be prone to Announcement-itis. It’s a condition involving infrequent and dramatic announcements punctuated by long periods of silence from the programme team. Internal and external stakeholders can find themselves in the dark about plans and progress – with damaging results.
It seems to have some common causes.
There’s nothing to say (or so they may think…)
It might be that the programme team doesn’t really see the value of communications apart from telling the rest of the organisation how successful they are. In my experience the condition tends to die off as successes become ever less significant and deadlines slip. In the end, everything is quietly forgotten.
Alternatively, everyone develops an obsession with waiting until there is new news to share. The problem is that in a fast-moving transformation, the point at which something is news is often unclear as things seep out in small droplets and the team at the centre of the change finds it’s hard to remember what has been shared anyway. In the end nothing is ever put into a proper context.
Yes, we’ve launched, what next?
Or it could be due to poor planning on the part of the communication team.
Exhausted by the effort of making the big launch we can often lose momentum. Update articles for the intranet take longer than expected to produce and become out of date before they have been signed off. The lack of firm deadlines removes the pressure to produce the video for use in team meetings and no one on the project team realises that they have to help with the monthly manager event.
So what preventative steps can internal communicators take?
Deadlines and foresight
I have always found it useful to prepare a grid that covers each phase of the programme and for each channel or tactic planned.
I ensure that we have a week by week schedule for the next six or eight weeks, after which the plan is broken down by months.
The point is not just to impose deadlines on myself (without which I am the world’s worst for prevarication) but also to ensure that upcoming communications needs are anticipated. If we are planning a voice of the customer video, for example, in four weeks time, the comms team knows that it should already be in production.
During a transformation programme things just seem to take longer to achieve so you need to plan for it.
There’s always an issue with sign offs and approvals – a transformation brings out the worst types of nervousness among leaders. And it is hard to tell when a technical specialist is being helpfully specific or chronically pedantic. You just have to expect the additional length of time which things can take and factor it in to avoid the void of information.
It’s about context and YSIC.
It can be difficult to identify what can be said, especially during the early planning stages of a transformation. However, once a change has been unveiled, silence can be interpreted as suspicious or a sign of a loss of momentum.
If in doubt, communications can always fall back on context and Why should I care (YSIC).
Context is all about explaining the forces at work that necessitate change and transformation. These can be negative and positive; threats or opportunities. Finding ways to share the views of internal and external experts or bringing the voice of the customer inside are always useful.
And, using external voices considerably shortens the approvals cycle as fewer individual project leaders need to be consulted.
Importantly, once the execution detail of the project is known, people are less likely to be receptive to context; they want to know about themselves and how they are impacted. Spend the early months getting the context story across.
YSIC is at the heart of what we’re trying to say. Not What’s in it for me ? Our aim is not to imply some benefit (even when there isn’t one) but rather to show how people are impacted – people like you.
A communicator should always be planning to provide case studies, illustration and data that show how colleagues lives are going to change. Where there is a voluntary component (there usually is unless job losses are involved) people like to know if anyone else is changing.
But pulling this information together can be deeply challenging. Programme teams don’t like to admit how few people have access to training or how late the new IT package is going to be.
Getting actions on the forward plan and getting the programme team’s agreement that it’s needed will, in the longer term, add real value to your organisation. The programme team won’t have to live with the consequences of selling employees a promise they can’t keep after they get promoted or move on to their next assignments – the comms team will.
Nailing down the plan has practical benefits in keeping things moving and establishing the role of the comms team as more than just the post box for the rare occasions the programme team wants to talk.
Thanks for stopping by. Have you anything to share from your experience in transformation? We’d love to hear from you, send us an email info@working-communication.com
Featured image credit: Martin Dörsch CCO splashbase.co
Don’t believe the transformation hype – at first
Transformation programmes always start off with big ideas but reality soon sets in. It’s a bit embarrassing for the communicator who believed the hype at the beginning and has to explain later on why things are not quite as promised says Liam FitzPatrick.
It seems to happen on virtually every single change programme I’ve ever been involved with. And I don’t think I’m the only communicator to experience this – transformation hype.
The Comms team is briefed at the beginning – or around the time the strategy consultants have prescribed a solution – and we’re told that “this time the CEO is serious” and that a wide range of robustly planned initiatives have been put in place to transform the organization.
We’re then asked to prepare a communications plan to unveil this comprehensive new vision.
But, time and again, the initial enthusiasm of the Programme Management Office (PMO) doesn’t quite follow through.
It might be that the CEO loses interest as soon as some drastic cost reductions have been delivered. Or everyone gets a reality check when they see the detail of the complicated assessment model that the HR consultants think they have sold.
It could be, that under close examination, the detailed proposals that seemed so simple in the diagnostic phase of the programme are actually unrealistic, expensive or just fantasy.
My experience is that every single transformation I have ever worked on has its “OK let’s think about it” moment.
That’s the moment when reality creeps in. The Operations Director may have got wind of the disruption being planned, the brilliant technological solution turns out to be a decade away or the Regional MDs have worked out that this is another one of those ignorable Head Office initiatives.
Whenever it happens, it always leaves the communications manager in a difficult position.
If the communicators believed the initial hype they can find themselves having to explain why the programme has been scaled down or “handed over to the divisions for implementation” and the Programme team broken up. They can end up answering uncomfortable questions about the missing training that was so lavishly promised. Communications gets the blame when people discover that the capability assessment is painful and pointless.
That’s not to say that the transformation programme won’t go on to deliver some amazing results. It’s just that my experience is that what is promised at the beginning is rarely what is delivered.
There seem to be two main approaches.
There’s the semi-vague intention and there’s the defined micro plan.
The semi-vague intention comes in all shapes and sizes but almost always combines a clear financial outcome (such as slashing costs or bolstering cash flow) and a general aspiration such as “planning for the future” or “leapfrogging the competition”.
The communication manager should be wary that the nicer or more exciting elements will be relatively undefined and will inevitably be dropped as soon as the CFO gets his or her results and can declare some form of short-term victory to the markets. In anticipation of this happening, the comms team protects the organization by avoiding the hubris of the PMO.
Until there is clarity about the follow-up actions, it’s always wise to avoid commissioning a fancy video or website. And, even more than ever, we should resist demands for a funky logo because we know that in six months time the whole thing will have become yet another example of the fads of management.
The defined micro-plan appears to be the solution and projects confidence. It comes with defined work streams and milestones. Often, I’ve arrived on projects to find a consultancy already installed with a mandate to implement their tried and tested proprietary approach.
Despite the apparent clarity of the work plan, the complexity of the moving parts normally brings it to a shuddering halt – too many parties depending on each other to hit deadlines followed by a growing realisation that the organization simply can not digest the volume of work coming its way.
If the communications team has done its job, it will have seen this one coming. A deep understanding of the organization will tell us what people can realistically cope with and will enable us to ask annoying questions about explaining inter-relationships between work streams. It takes a degree of courage, in the face of the unstoppable logical plan, to maintain an air of reality. However, our core skill is always to see things from the point of view of people outside the project team.
Sadly, it is not always obvious which early transformation approach one is dealing with.
The communicator therefore has two primary defences against making a fool of the programme team:
1. Take no one’s word for the wisdom of the plan
2. Be the most expert person around when it comes to knowing how the workforce and stakeholders think.
People in the PMO may not always like it at first, but the organisation will always thank you for being the voice of reality.
Featured image – what some people thought 2011 would look like in the 1940s. Source: Vippers (Japanese) via Rocket News 24
Helping leaders lead
In this day and age there can be few senior leaders who don’t think communication is a duty and an essential skill in their role. It’s a huge opportunity for the internal communication function, but what does it take to deliver for the boss?
It has been common thinking among communicators for some time that there are three main roles that we fulfil:
- Expert producer (who knows how to make communications happen)
- Business partner (who takes a defined business problem and develops communication solutions)
- Strategic advisor (who helps senior leaders identify business opportunities – which may or may not be exclusively concerned with communication).
And most of us recognise that in any given day an internal communicator might be called upon to fulfil all three roles.
However, it is not always clear what it takes to be effective in the last role; many of us struggle to explain what it means to be a strategic advisor and understand what are the specific skills and resources we need in order to be a good strategic advisor.
Useful Resources
Luckily there are some brilliant books around.
I’m really enjoying a recent discovery: James Lukaszewski’s Why Should the boss listen to you? Jim is a fellow member of the IABC’s Global Communications Certification Council where we’re working on global recognition for trusted advisors and his book came up in conversation.
For anyone hoping to be a counsel to leadership the book is packed full of useful advice centred around the idea that the boss’ problems are our problems.
And last year I fell in love with Richard Hytner’s Consiglieri – leading from the shadows. Hytner celebrates the world of the right-hand men and women, and offers a range of styles of advisors. “Lodestone” advisors are there to take on jobs that lighten the boss’s load, “Caddies” are expert advisors about what is coming and the tools needed or “Reasoners” who keep the boss grounded with clarity and sense-making.
Hytner suggests much more and his book is an excellent investment and a perfect gift which I have given to more than one client in the last year or so.
Putting theory into practice
It takes skill and experience to learn and perfect these roles; only time and exposure can turn promise into reality.
But we can start the journey towards strategic advisor by thinking what resources make us effective.
Workplace power or influence is often said to depend on things like status, the ability to reward or punish or, perhaps most usefully, on expertise and personality.
Most of the writing on providing leadership advice hint heavily that to be a solid counsellor there is a body of knowledge that we need to display. We need to know what is going on – internally and externally, we need to know what people think and what the boss wants, we need to know what works and what doesn’t.
In short, being influential begins with owning our professionalism; being expert in the audiences, their behaviours, the attitudes and how to reach them. I always argue we should never let anyone else think they know better than us when it comes to how communications work and what people are saying.
Secondly, the literature provides some clues about what sort of personality is needed. Hytner is particularly helpful, but the essence of his and Lukaszewski’s messages are that it’s not about you; it’s about the needs of the boss and the wider organisation.
As Jim Lukaszewski says:
“The counselor’s prime objective is always to look at the questions, issues, opportunities and vulnerabilities from the boss’ perspective first, and to test all advice against the leader’s perspective. This approach leads to better, more usable advice, more quickly”
His message is that we should always strive to offer advice which is:
- Practical
- Pragmatic
- Purposeful
- Focused
- Fair
Conclusion
Perhaps a first step is to take a personal inventory of the resources you have available to you. Most of all, ensure that you have the basics right; good data and sound understanding of the tools of communications.
Then, the consensus seems to be that increased access will come when you deliver on your personal value as an advisor; values which are likely to include trustworthiness, reliability and thinking through problems from the point of view of the boardroom.
Simple change communication surveys
Change communicators need data and to be adept at gathering it. Below we look at some of the reasons for gathering it and make some suggestions about the questions you need to ask and talk about some additional resources a communicator should know about.
Most of the work internal communicators do is about change whether that’s practical changes or personal transformation. We work in a field where we’re continually updating employees on new processes, changes to benefits schemes, helping to embed corporate values or supporting large-scale business transformation projects and more.
No matter what the size and scale of the change, it’s important to know where you are, right from the beginning, in order to effectively plan and track progress.
You need data.
You’ll want to know how you are doing, so depending upon the scale of the change you’ll need to do some research during the change and of course as you approach completion to see how successful the change has been.
Crucially, data adds weight to your advice and helps to head off some of the pointless speculation that seems to surround every programme we’ve ever worked on. When colleagues are happy to play guessing games about how well communication is working, you will want evidence, no matter how sketchy, to bring a note of realism to bear.
You can draw upon existing data and information for some projects, while others will need a specific study. Research doesn’t always need to be long, expensive or delivered by an external agency. Survey tools, a clear approach to your questions and knowing what you need to find out are key to helping you to do your own research.
The change communications process
We say that change communications can typically follow five stages and it is useful to understand how far along your audiences are in the process of:
- Awareness
- Understanding
- Excitement
- Competence
- Celebration and reinforcement.
Delivering the survey
Follow these tips to help you build a survey to help you make sure that your change programme starts off from the right footing.
Before you start, ask yourself:
- What exactly do I need to know and why?
Be clear about the issue that you want to understand. Don’t waste your time and that of your colleagues by trying to prove a point what you already really know. Are you ready to listen properly; don’t waste people’s time and your credibility by asking questions you don’t want the answer to…
Most of all focus on outcomes – not process. You want to know if the communications are bringing about change; information about how many people are seeing the intranet can be uncovered elsewhere.
- What do I want to happen with the information after I have gathered it?
Measure the right things. Make sure that your survey will give you results that will be useful and fit for the purpose. You should also have the support of the managers, with whom you want to share the results, before you embark on the survey process. With their buy-in it’ll make it much easier to share the results without having to expend more time defending what you did, why you did it and whether you asked the right questions. Consider your audience, their teams and how they’ll need to use the information you discover.
- Will I need to ask everyone or will a sample be enough?
This will depend on your situation. Of course a sample survey is cheaper, easier to administer and minimises survey fatigue, and can still give you a good insight into a given topic. But a significant change programme affecting the whole organisation may need a more detailed and thorough approach to ensure you’ve given everyone a chance to have their say.
- Does the information (or something like it) already exist somewhere else?
Every organisation has a mass of data in its different departments. Perhaps there’s already some data in the business that you can mine and use to inform your work or supplement your own research.
- What resources do you have to create and analyse a survey?
Have you got the time, tools and people to do your own research and do it well? You may need to pull in help from other departments if you’re a small comms team. Make sure you use the strengths of the people and resources you have to the best effect.
- How detailed do you need your research to be?
This will depend on your project, the scope of the area affected by the change and of course the resource you have available to deliver the survey and analyse the results in a useful way. Think about how you’ll report back. Too much information can become unmanageable and difficult to draw clear actions from. Report what you need to and use your deeper findings and knowledge when needed.
Example questions for a change project
These are some questions we’ve used in change surveys. You may not need all of them and we’ve grouped them to make it easier to understand what would be asked and why.
We normally ask people to tell us on a five point scale how far they agree with a set of statements.
Awareness questions:
- I am aware that the company is implementing a new strategy
- I think XYZ thinks ahead and plans for the future.
Understanding questions:
- I understand the changes proposed in the new strategy
- I see the need for the changes outlined in the new strategy
- At work, I know what is expected of me.
Commitment/excitement questions
- I want to change the way I work
- I think the company is implementing its plans in line with our values
- I am passionate about the future of the company.
Capability questions
- I know where to find out more information about the changes which the company is making
- I feel supported during organisational change
- I have access to the resources (e.g. material, equipment, technology) I need to do my job effectively
- I have the training I need to do my job effectively.
“Is it working?” questions
- I can see changes happening around me as a result of the new strategy
- I feel the new structure lets me do my job better than before.
You may have your own to add to this list and no doubt your project will have some specific questions that you need to include. Often we’ll include a question about whether managers are able to explain how change works for example. But we’ve found this list a useful start to many change projects in a range of industries and situations.
Feel free to comment and let us know what you would add. And I’d love to hear about your experiences of implementing change research in your organisations.
Additional resources
Over the years we have found the following to be incredibly useful resources:
Susan Walker’s book on Employee Engagement Research looks at larger scale studies and provides some great case studies of how organisations implement their research.
Kevin Ruck provides an academic overview of the subject in his study text Exploring Internal Communication
If you need to get more focused on employee engagement, Emma Bridger’s book has some really helpful tools for understanding the situation in your organisation.
Finally, every internal communicator should bookmark Angela Sinickas’ website – she’s forgotten more about measurement than many of us every knew in the first place!
Liam
A digital 2016?
Just before Christmas I asked a few friends in internal communication about their development plans for 2016 and they all replied ‘We need to get better at digital”.
Interestingly, people seem to have moved on from the conversations of a couple of years ago. Much of the internal social media hype hasn’t come to pass; the wilder predictions about the nature of human organisations haven’t been realised and may still be many years away.
Rather, people have a clearer understanding about the role of digital in their comms mix and they want to get better at using it. Some of my friends suggested that although they wished they had better tools they felt they were not making the best use of what they had.
Interestingly though, was the consistent theme that IC people had to have a better understanding of the external tools that are available. The message seems to be that convergence is a reality. My ‘sample” included three multi-national organisations where the distinctions between internal and external are becoming very blurred.
Which rather throws up a problem.
How do you go about acquiring the knowledge of skills you need?
There seems to be relatively little formal development opportunity available out there. There are of course plenty of organisations offering training in the mysteries of social media. Some, such as Smile from Simply communicate or the PR Academy even focus on internal social media.
And, one of my friends said that she was working with Melcrum to develop a bespoke training syllabus for her team.
However, another of my friends suggested that the answer lies in watching and copying! She suggested that her ambition is to get her team to embrace the ‘everything digital mind-set’ behind www.gov.uk. Getting out there and practicing and seeing what works for your organisation seems to be the answer.
The over-riding impression that I got from the responses, was that convergence is increasingly the name of the game. It seems that the major organisations I approached all seem to be assuming that the days of pretending that there is a difference between internal and external are numbered…
So, nothing new perhaps, but rather we are just getting closer to a true practice of communication. A convergence, where communication is just communication, not internal, not external, but simply good strong, planned and strategically thought through communication.
Image credit: gratisography.com
Internal Communications – are PRs up to the job?
This blog was originally published by the Public Relations Consultants Association.
Apparently Internal Communications is consistently reported as one of the biggest worries of Comms Directors. And where once IC was a backwater in which to park your career, a stint worrying about employees is now an essential box to tick on the way to the top job in PR.
But some PR Agencies seem slow to catch up.
Although most UK consultancies claim to offer IC services, most in-house practitioners would raise an eyebrow at the advice and support that is available. A trawl around websites of PRCA members brings up phrases like ‘selecting channels’ or ‘internal PR’ and the implication that explaining change is just a matter of slick messaging and spin.
That’s not to say that there are not some beacons of excellence out there.
The firms that have twigged that PR and media relations are not synonymous are talking about employee engagement and the impact that committed staff have on business performance.We’re people who understand people so we should be good at this stuff. But the problem for agencies is that IC doesn’t always suit the business model.
Our core skill is in providing a bridge between audiences.
Old school PRs made a living explaining to executives how the press thought and vice versa; all based on experience of how the media worked and operated.
With internal audiences, consultancies struggle to have a deep insight into how staff in different companies see the world. An in-house team, working properly, should know what their colleagues think and how they will react to a particular set of messages. The internal communications team should understand what works for their people and what is likely to disengage them.
Selling advice from a remote consultancy office isn’t so easy when the client knows the lie of the land better than you. Applying the consulting practices of old PR means a lost opportunity.
So where can consultancies add value?
At the operational level, producing materials and writing content, it is hard to beat the regiment of very good freelancers out there.
It is at the strategic level that we can make the most difference; IC gives us the chance to show that we have more to add to the success of organisations. When consultants are able to come onsite for long enough to learn what is really happening on the ground and combine that with specialist knowledge of how to get leaders to lead, how to involve employees in developing solutions or how crises play out inside organisations, there is the scope for real added value. Value that comes from getting people working more effectively, from people proud to speak up on behalf of their employer and a willingness to deliver the reputational promise.