We are not magicians…

Lately, I’ve seen posts on here discussing how colleagues in HR or other corporate functions are not magicians. The same can be said of internal communicators! 

We can be strategic, insightful, creative and innovative: often all at once.  We can share sweeping visions and deliver pragmatic plans. But we need trust, input and empowerment from the colleagues we’re supporting.

For while we can create something from nothing – and often do! – we’ll add far more value for our companies if we’re treated as true business partners, with the involvement, briefing and collaboration this requires.

My worst example was being asked to come up with a new set of values for a large company within a couple of hours. I still shudder when I think of it. And no, I don’t want to be reminded of what I wrote.

As a profession, we’ll always bring a little alchemy to any company, just don’t expect us to be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat on every occasion!

People are still people

Tomorrow marks 43 years since Depeche Mode released their first album in the UK. 43 YEARS! Where has that time gone?! Anyway, it made me recall this piece from five years ago, which I feel still holds true...

I suspect few would have synth-pop legends Depeche Mode down as pioneers of employee engagement. But the more complex that participants in this field try to make it, the more their simple refrain ‘People are people’ appeals.

The articulation and application of labels to groups in the workforce has almost become an industry in its own right. To be fair, it’s not just this profession: many protagonists have helped to light the fire, but we avidly fan the flames. And I’m not sure it’s doing us or our organisations any favours.

Supporters argue that such segmentation helps us make sense of changing workforce needs. Detractors say that it introduces massive generalisations that don’t help anyone.

Cynics might argue that developing new labels provides an opportunity to sell something different.

There’s probably some truth in each case. But I feel that developing labels has become a distraction from our core challenge of understanding and responding to the needs of our particular organisations and their people.  

Let’s get back to some basics and the principles that those boys from Basildon espoused more than 30 years ago. Let’s understand our people as they are. Not through the lens of a label that is foisted upon them. 

The new sweetcomms.com

Sometimes, you have to recognise that your skillset isn’t sufficient.

With that in mind, I am pleased to share the new Sweet Comms website. As we approach nearly a decade in business (where did that time go?), I have finally admitted that my rudimentary website skills need support! So the lovely people at GoDaddy have helped me build a new site. 

In practice, little has changed. We’re still offering the same blend of strategic advice and hands-on support to help employers connect and communicate with their people. We’re just promoting our services through a shiny new site.

We hope you like it. And if it prompts you to think about how we could help you, do get in touch.

No heart-warming Cinderella story

 In more  than 25 years in this field, so much has changed. Unfortunately, some things  have not.

 It amazes  me that when change is being announced – whatever the scale – some companies still do not prioritise communication with the people affected. We used to talk about the risk of employees reading the news while eating their cornflakes, now we highlight the risk of leaks through social media. The context has changed, but the principle remains the same: reach the people affected first.

This simple, enduring principle does not appear to have been followed yesterday, when the musical Cinderella was cancelled. Some cast members found out through social media. People who were due to take up new roles in a few weeks, when there was due to be a cast change, started to hear they were being let down from others, not from their prospective employer. Much uproar and anger have followed, garnering national headlines that focus on the way the news was announced rather than the closure of the show.

What any company in this position should do is have a rapid and robust contact programme that prioritises those affected and plans practical ways of reaching them in a very short timeframe. Perhaps The Really Useful group will reflect that announcing the closure on a Bank Holiday Sunday, and sending emails to agents when they are not going to be in the office, might not have been the best course of action.

Whatever the reasons for the closure – and perhaps there was a pressing commercial reason why it had to be announced yesterday - better planning and execution were required. Instead of understanding the rationale for the closure, but reflecting on the company’s responsible approach to those affected, we are now talking and hearing about the callous and uncaring way in which the news was communicated.

The announcement has become the story – and that is never a good look for any company.

Uncertainty concerns, speculation is worse

Every change or crisis comms text you’ll ever read will declare, somewhere within its sage advice, “never speculate”. It’s one of the fundamental tenets when dealing with the natural inclination to make up for an absence of facts: don’t make a rod for your own back.

There will be lots of internal communicators in UK-based companies fighting the impulse to give some reassurance to employees over Brexit right now.

There is so much uncertainty, and the political situation is changing so quickly, that firm facts are hard to discern. However, the desire to reassure employees over the future for the company, and the prospects for EU nationals in the workforce, must be growing every day. When nothing is clear, it’s hard to build confidence. But the need to do so remains.

In such circumstances there is a tendency to distil concrete and discrete scenarios: to say if x happens, it will mean y and we’ll do z. But that means hoping the sands don’t shift any further in the coming days (let alone weeks): routes that seem likely today could easily be ruled out tomorrow in the current febrile environment. Make one wrong prediction, in a bid to address uncertainty, and the company’s credibility as a source of reassurance will be shot.

Far better, in the short term, to emphasise that the company is zealously monitoring the situation and planning for many different scenarios. To emphasise that robust scenario planning means it has a whole toolkit from which it will deploy appropriate measures when the time is right.

In other words, acknowledge the uncertainties, don’t seek the resolve them. Emphasise that the organisation is ready for anything and prepared to act. Confirm the company’s commitment to share news and provide clarity as soon as it can. This might not immediately bring the certainty employees crave – and that communicators want to give – but it will help to maintain the credibility of communications and mean there’s more trust in the well when the situation becomes clearer.

Why VW should start from the inside out

As if it couldn’t get any worse. Today it’s the reputation of the whole car industry with different manufacturers now potentially implicated in the emissions scandal. Previously we’ve seen commentators sounding the death knell for the diesel engine. And some have gone as far as to use the deception as a proxy for all that’s wrong with capitalism and why (with the help of Mr Corbyn) it’s time for real change.

I’m afraid my take is a little more mundane. We’ve seen plenty of ‘reaching out’ to customers, regulators and other stakeholders, but what about the poor bloody employee? Even if the culture at VW has tacitly supported the manipulation of emissions tests over the past few years, one must assume that for the majority of employees the recent turn of events is as much a surprise to them as to the wider public. 

I have no doubt the internal communication machine has gone into overdrive in trying to keep people, firstly, informed of the facts and current status and, secondly, attempting to communicate some semblance of ‘business as usual’ (even when it patently isn’t).  The new CEO, Matthias Mueller has a crucial role to play, a role that can’t be delegated to others in the executive team. Of course the demands on his time will be significant but if he understands the link between engaged employees and satisfied customers the residue of trust, which I believe still exists with the VW brand, can be harnessed to mutual benefit.

So it’s important for leadership to understand that VW cannot hope to emerge from this crisis without the support and commitment of its people. But there are also more pragmatic reasons for focusing attention internally. A rush to the exits remains a real possibility as disenchanted employees realise the implications of what’s gone on. And what about maintaining a decent influx of talent to sustain the company in the future? The threat to the ‘employer brand’ becomes very real.

Without clear and consistent, responsive and fact-based communication then the (extreme and opposing) scenarios outlined below could become a reality with all the attendant damage it brings. Think about the simple job interview and the potential response of the uninformed manager (it would be more of a surprise if the candidate didn’t ask about current events, even if only in an innocuous way):

"So tell me how you are responding to events surrounding emissions tests?”, (as opposed to “Tell me why on earth I should join an organisation that has been involved in the wilful and organised deceit of both customers and regulators?”).

Potential answer 1:

Good question. I’m glad you asked me that. Of course you do realise it’s been blown up out of all proportion. A little local difficulty with our friends in the US. Before you know it, everyone will have forgotten about it and we’ll back to the business of selling cars. You really don’t need to worry about it. Next question…”

Potential answer 2:

I’m glad you’ve raised this. To tell you the truth I think we’re doomed. No one is telling us what’s going on and every day brings new revelations.  God knows what the people involved thought they were doing. Now everyone is asking why I work for such and organisation.

I wonder what tomorrow will bring.

Nick 

Helping the ‘squeezed middle’ support social

In a post last week, I highlighted the lack of focus on managers in discussions around enterprise social networks (ESNs). I’d like to follow that post by offering some thoughts on how organisations can address the issue.

Managers form the ‘squeezed middle’ in any organisation. They need to deal with twin – and potentially conflicting – pressures: expectations from leaders that they will deliver business plans in practice and expectations from employees that, whatever the corporate demands, their manager will look after their particular needs and interests. It is, to put it mildly, a tough gig.

But it’s a pivotal one, particularly when an organisation is seeking to introduce new ways of working. And this is, in many cases, exactly what the advent of an ESN is intended to achieve. The aims usually include breaking down silos and inspiring collaborating outside traditional role descriptions. This carries major implications for managers who, in many structures and cultures, have hitherto focused on a confined team, with defined roles and related objectives/performance management processes. Suddenly, employees are being encouraged to look beyond their traditional team(s), to contribute their time and expertise to questions and challenges faced by people in different parts of the company, whom they may never meet nor directly work with. If such collaboration is to become part of day-to-day life, managers need to understand and encourage it, embracing the opportunities rather than fighting against the implications. Yet we may not be doing all we can to engage and equip them for this change.  

With this in mind, I’d like to suggest some simple steps that any organisation can take to better prepare their managers for an ESN:

1.    Engage them – the first step must be to engage managers as a group in themselves. This isn’t an issue associated solely with an ESN, because greater recognition of the need to communicate directly with managers as a discrete group would enhance engagement in many contexts. But in this case, it’s important to help them understand the aims, benefits and implications of an ESN so they can engage with and process what it would mean for themselves and their team(s). This isn’t just about sharing information, it’s also about  seeking their questions, identifying and addressing their concerns, and identifying what additional support (if any) they may need to play their part. This is vital groundwork if you want new ways of working to take root within day-to-day business.

2.     Involve them – as you develop a tool to help spark new ways of working, involve managers to help you identify and address potential issues (for example, desired functionality, or implications for management systems beyond the new tool). Taking some simple and structured soundings at key points in the process could elicit valuable insights that you can use to develop or tailor the changes you’re intending to introduce.

3.    Train them – the way we train (or don’t train) managers has been an issue for years. We all know it (and it’s worth hearing the words on this topic from Peter Cheese, CEO of CIPD, in his recent interview with Engage for Success). Yet we still promote many people based on their technical prowess without giving them a grounding in the communication or engagement skills they’ll need to succeed.  And the introduction of an ESN only exacerbates that need.  Every organisation should be considering what training and support managers will need to aid the introduction and embedding of the tool and its associated ways of working.

4.     Engage with them (again) – you’ve got to keep connecting and communicating with managers to help them play their part. Continue to share information on progress. Invite and respond to further questions or concerns. Celebrate what the new tool and associated ways of working have helped to achieve. This can help you create an informed and engaged group that forms the bedrock for a stronger and more collaborative community across the organisation as a whole

5.     Help them  – the most enthusiastic managers will struggle if their organisation’s systems don’t align with the aims of an ESN. For example, if you are expecting people to collaborate across traditional team boundaries, you have to recognise that desired company behaviours and performance management processes should reflect this. In essence, such systems must show managers they should encourage rather than hold back such activity, and to participate in it themselves.

 

6.       Show them – last but not least, managers need to see role models, particularly leaders who eagerly embrace and participate in the ESN and associated ways of working. If all the other stars are aligned, but leaders suggest indifference, the changes you are seeking may still simply impact on the surface of corporate culture, rather than taking root within it.

I am sure there are many others, and would love to hear your views or suggestions. But these steps are crucial to helping to engage and equip managers to play their part. Without sufficient focus on them, an organisation only undermines the investment it makes in any new tool and associated ways of working.

Under new management: why enterprise social networks require a different approach

With all the fervour over the power and potential of enterprise social networks (ESNs) to improve the way we work and engage with each other, one important issue has been given less attention. What is the impact on managers?

As we empower people more and more to connect with peers in different parts of the organisation, enabling them to develop ideas and resolve issues together, we’re breaking down all kinds of silos but we’re also unpicking more traditional modes of management. Stowe Boyd talks about ‘leanership’: his vision of a situation in which teams organise and manage themselves, with everyone demonstrating elements of leadership on a day-to-day basis. Whilst that might seem a long way off for many organisations, the direction of travel is clear and we should be considering the implications for the way we prepare and support managers to play a changing role.

The issue is particularly acute because we haven’t caught up with the needs of today, let alone tomorrow. The ever-growing canon of literature and commentary regarding employee engagement highlights just how important a more involving and empowering approach to management is within organisations. We know that people will give more if they feel part of their team and their organisation, that they have a voice in it, that they are not just recipients of instructions. Yet survey after survey bemoans the state of our management skills, suggesting we are not equipping or supporting managers to fulfil this role.  And now we want managers to change even more?

Make no mistake about it, if we’re going to make the most of ESNs, we need managers at all levels to grasp and help catalyse change. We need them to re-think what constitutes day-to-day work for their people. We need them to liberate employees to connect and communicate with others in very different areas. We need them to reshape the way they organise people and to nurture behaviours that bust silos for the greater good.  And we will need them to consider implications for the way they evaluate and recognise individual contribution and performance.

This is a big change for managers – and for the organisation as a whole. Leaders will set the tone, and colleagues in Communications or IT will introduce the tools, but managers will hold the key to whether ESNs really change the way companies work or simply impact on the surface of corporate culture. Yet in my view there has not been nearly enough discussion or emphasis on how we can engage and equip them to play their part.

A theme I shall return to in future posts!

I don't want no satisfaction

Holidays meant I missed this little gem exploring factors informing adaptability to change.

It summarises research suggesting that highly satisfied employees don’t always advocate change. Which seems to me fairly obvious: satisfaction inevitably equates to contentment with the status quo. And that hardly breeds enthusiasm and energy for change.

To me, it’s another reason why exploring employee satisfaction is a complete red herring (don’t even get me started on ‘happiness’). Far better to focus on nurturing a culture that inspires and supports people to keep growing and challenging. To go beyond what’s needed. To look for ways of changing how things are done.

Such spirit doesn’t come from being satisfied, it springs from being dissatisfied – or at least being unwilling to accept that the way things are is the way they should always be. That’s what we need to be inspiring within our organisations, along with the systems and tools that help people turn such restless energy into efforts and activities that align with organisational goals.

Help employees connect with the company mission, strategy and values. Give them clarity on roles and expectations. Keep sharing information and discussing their questions and concerns. And give them the opportunity and autonomy to shape the world they work in.

There’s a lot covered by those 40 words. And no doubt much more besides them. But nurturing a culture along those lines is far more conducive to growth, and the change that’s necessary to spark it, than focusing on satisfaction with the status quo.  

Missing people in M&A

There’s a slightly depressing story in Human Resources this week suggesting that people problems in mergers and acquisitions are on the rise. In a thawing economic environment, where such deals are bound to increase, that’s got to be a concern.

But the most depressing thing is that we have heard similar things before. Many times.  

There is plenty of literature, going back many years, on the importance of engaging and supporting people involved in a merger or acquisition (on either side). Focusing too much on meshing facilities or balance sheets, and not enough on fashioning an effective team, means any new entity becomes rather less than the sum of its previous parts. The value that the change is expected to deliver proves rather illusory as previous projections become akin to a house built on sand.

There are many people issues involved in any such change and highlighted in the Mercer report that lies behind this news story, but to my mind none is more important than employee engagement. It is simply vital to develop and implement a clear, comprehensive and flexible engagement programme to inform and involve diverse employees in the progress of change. This much is intuitive. So why doesn’t it always happen?

There is no simple answer, but I would highlight two, contrasting situations that I have seen over the years:

·         in the first, employee engagement is simply not seen as important enough in the grand scheme of things, and the team involved in designing and delivering change only looks to colleagues for support when they have, to all intents and purposes, already developed the approach themselves. Those nominally responsible for employee engagement or internal communication are then handed something of a ‘hospital pass’ as they seek to weave in some core principles and good practice – but they are already fighting a losing battle

·         in the second, internal communicators are involved – much earlier on – but are so keen to make things happen, or feel the need for action is so great, that they essentially escape the bounds of the change programme they are supporting. This can lead to a rush of unco-ordinated communications, at different times, with confusing messaging and inconsistent dialogue. A recipe for disaster, through which communication is throwing up more obstacles rather than smoothing the way.

These scenarios may look extreme, but I’d suggest both are fairly common. And they both demonstrate a poor grasp of the role and importance of employee engagement during change.

To me, the way to resolve is this is to establish engagement as a core business priority from the early stages of planning for change, and to ensure that the resultant programmes always maintain an umbilical link with the project they are there to support. This is vital in any scenario, let one in which the stakes are as big as they are for a merger or acquisition. As the pace of such deals picks up, I hope it’s something we’ll see more of in practice.