Category: Miscellaneous
In reading The Chairman’s Letter in this year’s IBM annual report I was struck that it’s an excellent example of several principles of effective internal leadership communication:
- Alignment of the “strategic message hierarchy”: The letter creates a clear and credible link between IBM’s mission, vision, strategy, initiatives, and metrics.
- The use of narratives to frame the strategic context: The headings of the information dashboard about halfway through the piece, when strung together, tell a story that frames the strategic context of the business and the 2006 results (and even better, the report offers quantitative support for each):
- Several years ago we saw change coming.
- We remixed our business, to move to the emerging higher-value spaces.
- And we decided to become a globally integrated enterprise, in order to improve IBM’s overall productivity and to participate in the world’s growth markets.
- As a result, IBM is a higher-performing enterprise today than it was a decade ago. Our business model is more aligned with our clients’ needs and generates better earnings, profits and cash.
- And that has enabled us to invest in future sources of growth and provide record return to investors … while continuing to invest in R&D — more than $28 billion over the past five years.
- Strong information design in presenting the numbers: Both the dashboard and the financial table would make Tufte proud.
- “The expert’s voice”: Sam Palmisano sounds more like an adviser than an executive … a solid choice for a document meant to reassure and offer guidance.
You may read the entire report here in several formats.
(Disclosure: Members of IBM’s internal communication team are friends of the firm, though they weren’t contacted nor consulted in my writing this post.)
Around Valentine’s Day, we hear more about relationships than any other time of year. Interestingly, the Wall Street Journal provides two interesting articles on relationships and technology. One story, its not u, focuses on ending relationships electronically– primarily through email or text messages. Its author calls the technology-arbited breakups, “techno brush-offs.”
Each article makes the point that our interpersonal relationships are changing for the worse. Tough conversations once reserved for face time are absorbed by people’s familiarity with—and inappropriate use of—technology. One woman, the recipient of a combination-text/email breakup, considers such a message “a product of our times.” “‘I hate what this has become,’ she says. ‘Every computer and cellular phone needs a little instruction manual to let people know what can be sent in a text, what can be sent in an email, what can be said on the phone, and what must be said in person.’”
Yet the appreciation for interpersonal interactions conflicts with our everyday tendencies. We check and respond to email constantly and depend on the web for to-the-minute information on both personal and professional topics. The WSJ article, Deleting the Habit, talks about the similarities between technology reliance and drug addiction. “Addicts” have a hard time unplugging during once-sacred quality time– on vacations, during family time, and even while honeymooning.
Global Ideas Bank, a London think tank, holds an annual “International Internet-Free Day” to encourage people to participate in face-to-face interactions. The Bank’s director said to WSJ, “It’s good to speak to people.” But getting off the Web grid encourages people to do things that seem archaic to techno-junkies, like reading newspapers, having face-to-face conversation, or making phone calls from (gasp!) land lines while sitting still.
Though the content of these articles isn’t groundbreaking, few of us relate these key learnings to our professional lives, like unplugging during meetings and conferences, and having phone or face-to-face conversations rather than instant or email messaging. Using one-way communication technologies, like the latter, cuts valuable interpersonal cues from our interactions. And like breaking off love relationships via email, breaking tough or sensitive news to colleagues is more difficult for recipients when they can’t hear your voice, ask immediate questions, or see your facial expressions.
We advise clients to consider the type of medium through which they send messages. The concept of media richness relates to the amount of feedback a medium affords to a sender or receiver of a message. Lean media are best suited to deliver specific, tactical, or historical information; while rich media are better suited to deliver strategic, persuasive, or emotion-invoking messages. And conversations with your colleagues, direct reports, clients, or leaders often fall into one of these three categories. Highly charged topics simply require face-to-face discussion, or at least a phone call. (Read more about CRA’s take on media richness here.)
So let this time of year remind you to move away from the computer, put down the cell phone, and take time to talk to your colleagues, friends, and family. Communicating this way may take more time (and sometimes gumption) on your part, but your relationships will more likely thrive and endure as a result.
(Read here about techno brush-offs and here about technology junkies. WSJ.com registration is required.)
Internal communicators are all too familiar with business buzz words—shareholder value, excellence, compassion—intended to engage employees. On the contrary, organizational strategy is often unclear to employees who don’t understand how their work fits into the mission. A Harvard Business Review piece (subscription required) explains that the “sweeping, general language” used in many organizational strategies and missions disconnects executives from staff. Authors and brothers, Chip and Dan Heath, explain this phenomenon as “The Curse of Knowledge” and offer the following definition:
Top executives have had years of immersion in the logic and conventions of business, so when they speak abstractly, they are simply summarizing the wealth of concrete data in their heads. But frontline employees, who aren’t privy to the underlying meaning, hear only opaque phrases. As a result, the strategies being touted don’t stick (HBR, December 2006).
To reverse the “curse,” Heath and Heath suggest making strategic messages sticky. Sticky messages are relevant and clear to staff, and encourage them to (1) remember what they learn about their organization’s mission, and (2) carry out that mission daily.
This is consistent with what we advise our clients. Perhaps more simply put, all strategic messages must be:
- Universal
- Simple
- Broad
- Actionable
- Accurate
- Explanatory of what you’re doing and why
The challenge, then, is how else you can increase stickiness. Like the Heath article, a chapter of Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point (which we recommend highly) identifies ways to do just this. For illustration, Gladwell presents two empirical studies of some of the least sophisticated, least biased audiences: preschoolers. From those studies, Gladwell highlights that people pay attention, and subsequently learn, when they understand the messages they hear and see. Taken together, Heaths’ and Gladwell’s arguments make a point that all employees echo: organizational strategies should appeal to common sense.
So how can you reverse the curse of knowledge? You can read more on sticky messages here, and consider these final tips. First, give people concrete language—even if it seems overly simplified. For example, “raising the value of our stock” is more concrete than the ubiquitous “creating value.” Next, the component parts of an organization’s strategy should be intuitive. Anyone can understand a phrase like, “Satisfy our customers’ needs.” The ways staff can satisfy their customers, of course, can be more complex and specific to each department or role. And finally, construct memorable stories that illustrate your organization’s values in action. Base the stories on what’s familiar—using well-known parables or examples of your staff doing great work—which will help eliminate business-speak, and create usable context for your staff.
Since Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, it has become almost a given in marketing, and to some degree in communications, that if you want to influence some audience or target group, you only need to influence the influencers, that small group of ‘connectors,” “mavens,” and “salesmen” who will in turn influence everyone else. Seems compelling, and makes sense. But is it true?
Not according to Duncan Watts, a sociologist and expert in social networks. Writing a brief note in the article “Breakthrough Ideas for 2007” in this month’s Harvard Business Review, (www.hbr.org) Watts alludes to research he has done that suggests greater complexity to the process of social influence. In fact, he goes as far as saying that:
“I have found that influentials [read connectors, mavens and salesmen] have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact, they don’t seem to be required at all.”
The key to success, according to Watts, lies as much with the context and audience as with the influencer. For Watts, no matter how many connectors, mavens or salesmen you have working with you, if the group you’re trying to influence and persuade doesn’t have “a critical mass of easily influenced people”, forget it. Success is independent of the influencers, “…just as the size of a forest fire has little to do with the spark that started it and lots to do with the state of the forest.”
Does this suggest abandoning the search for and work with influencers? Not at all. But it does suggest that like all persuasive communications, understanding the audience and context is a necessity for success, no matter how many influencers you can bring to bear.
I’m posting this a bit late, but one may find a set of significant speeches by Martin Luther King online, courtesy American Rhetoric. King has several speeches ranked by a group of scholars in the top 100 American Speeches:
There is full text and audio for each. Well worth the time.
A recent article in Communications World echoes the advice we often give clients:
- Get out in front of employees more often.
- Give them straightforward information.
- Choose to communicate sooner rather than later.
- Ask good questions and acknowledge employees’ input.
So, as leaders plan their New Year communications (e.g. town halls, strategy sessions, etc.), they should also resolve to be “real” with employees–because they value authenticity, honesty, and clarity above all else.
Planning to travel this holiday season? If so, you’re also probably one of millions of Americans who are dreading the airport security lines – I know I am. As I gear up for my holiday travel and remember so many of my own frustrating trips through airport security, I can’t help but think about accountability at the airport.
It’s been several months since the TSA carry-on regulations took hold, so why are some travelers still confused? I think it’s time to take a closer look at the TSA, as a real-world case study for creating conditions of accountability about what is and what isn’t allowed through airport security.
Creating the conditions of accountability is necessary in any organization for getting people to do the things they need to do – whether it be complying with SOX or with carry-on luggage regulations. As outlined in the article, “How to combat a culture of excuses and promote accountability,” we believe the root cause of many accountability problems can be uncovered by asking four questions at the core of accountability:
- Are expectations clear to employees?
- Are those expectations perceived as credible and reasonable?
- Do employees anticipate that positive consequences will follow performance?
- Do employees anticipate that negative consequences will follow poor performance?
Replace “employees” with “travelers” in these four questions, and you’ve uncovered a major problem: the TSA isn’t creating conditions of accountability. Let’s look at the first question – are expectations around the regulations clear to travelers? No. We’re constantly hearing different things: no liquids allowed; only three ounce containers are permitted; zip-top sandwich bags only; no fold over or gallon size bags…it gets confusing.
The TSA, like all other organizations, is responsible for establishing the conditions of accountability – and we believe the first step to making this happen is to clearly communicate the expectations around liquid, gel, and aerosol restrictions. But this will only solve part of the problem. The expectations around the regulations must also be credible and reasonable, and travelers must anticipate the positive and negative consequences following performance or non-performance.
If the TSA had only established the conditions of accountability at airports, we’d all be happy travelers this holiday season.
When two clocks tell different times, people don’t know which time is correct. In organizations, when two clocks are set to different times, you’ll get an à la carte approach to punctuality. Similarly, when leaders operate with the equivalent of two different clocks—when their words send one message and their actions another—they risk that employees will pick and choose behaviors when they’re convenient. Dual clocks is a useful metaphor; it explains why eliminating ambiguity is the best way to ensure accuracy. In the same way that employees tardy to a meeting or late on a deadline may use the slow clock to their advantage, unclear expectations almost sanction employees’ breach in policy. While a laidback observance of hours and minutes may not land you in the slammer, negligent adherence to a code of conduct can.
The finest way you can ensure strict devotion to policy is to be explicit and transparent. Direct reports look to their managers to translate the barrage of messages that come down the pike. We advise leaders to “walk the talk” because it sends the clearest message. Sending explicit, transparent and consistent messages means you never give anyone a reason to question where you stand, which is exactly what you want when it comes to your company’s policy on ethical conduct.
Blogs are one area where companies are taking measures to provide employees with clear expectations about what is and isn’t acceptable. Here’s what Dell is doing to establish straightforward standards for online communication between representatives and customers.
By making expectations explicit and transparent, Dell is closer to guaranteeing that its company, customers, and shareholders are safe. Its online communications policy makes known what is acceptable; even better, it links with other company policies, which builds in redundancy and gives employees more context for policies in the larger organization.
What’s the best way to ensure everyone is on time? Use one clock. And the best way to guarantee ethical conduct? Be explicit and transparent.
Is your CEO asking for her own blog? Have you tried unsuccessfully to convince your CEO that he should have his own blog?
Obviously, we value blogs as a communication tool and many of us, too, have advised our clients to start blogging–or at least to get smart about what it can and cannot do for you as a communication vehicle.
If you are looking for background info on corporate blogging, and CEO blogs in particular, I encourage you to read this column in Fortune: Corporate Blogging: Wal-mart Fumbles. The author, Marc Gunther, offers a deeper-than-surface-level history on corporate blogging and provides suggestions on what to consider if you’re considering a blog.
If you don’t read the article and you decide to start a corporate blog … just please make sure you follow these two rules: be authentic and be forthright.
As many of our clients will attest, we are big fans of David Maister … and that is probably a bit of an understatement. (Alan has referenced one of his books, True Professionalism twice: here and here and we regularly recommend The Trusted Advisor to clients.) Well, as you may or may not know, David started blogging a few months ago (and podcasting!) and his blog is one of the first in my Bloglines account that I read.
I was about to post his post from today to our internal blog when I realized that many of you would also benefit from his thoughts, as well as the thoughts from his commenters.
The number one challenge of many organizations (including ours) is recruiting and retention. David’s post today focused on Screening For Character–a practice I’ve watched many clients try to emulate unsuccessfully. His post has sparked quite the discussion in his comment section and I encourage anyone interested in the topic to read through all of them.
In reading The Chairman’s Letter in this year’s IBM annual report I was struck that it’s an excellent example of several principles of effective internal leadership communication:
