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.

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 

Who holds the power of purpose?

In a recent piece for HR magazine, Cary Cooper says “a sense of purpose has to be ingrained within each member of staff” by “smart leaders” who interact with staff. He concludes by proclaiming that HR directors “need to remember that connecting with employees is the soul of effective engagement”.

There is obvious truth in all of this, but there are also several dangers. Not least in assuming that this type of connection can be forged from the top.

Ultimately, whether we connect with our company’s vision, and develop a sense of shared purpose, is up to us. No leader has the power to create that connection for us. Even the most charismatic individual cannot “ingrain” common purpose within a group of people, and it’s dangerous (and overstating things) to claim that he or she can. It’s up to each of us to make our own connection with it and to imbibe that purpose as our own.

“Smart leaders” (to use Professor Cooper’s phrase) recognise this and create the right conditions for us each to take the final step ourselves. Sure, they set out their stall for the ‘direction of travel’. They ensure there is regular sharing of information about the business and its progress.  And they act as role models for the dialogue that allows individuals to check understanding, ask questions and raise concerns.

However, they go beyond these steps by inviting and supporting us to really get involved in our organisations. They give us opportunities to shape the working world around us, through our ideas, feedback and energy. They nurture a culture that enables us to help create, interpret and propagate the purpose that has evolved has a result.   

Now, more than ever, common purpose evolves from participation in our organisations. Leaders who recognise this will be rewarded with employees who really share common goals and radiate them to colleagues, customers and the communities around them. 

Defusing the ticking time bomb of corporate values

We’ve all seen plenty of commentary regarding changing workforce demographics and the impact on workplace dynamics. But these developments have even deeper significance for an organisation’s values, which could spark conflict rather than cohesion if they do not keep pace.

Researchers are telling us that generational demarcations within the workplace are now more pronounced than ever. Many organisations have several generations within the same workforce, from ‘baby boomers’ to so-called ‘millennials’, each of whom have different expectations, priorities and desired working practices. Blending such groups into a cohesive team is a major challenge for organisations of many types and sizes.

Yet there has been little discussion of the impact these developments might have on the core values that an organisation espouses.

Values can be powerful for any employer. I am not talking about synthetic sets of words or bullet points on websites or in corporate Receptions, but about clear and compelling summaries of the beliefs that guide an organisation and its people. When these are drawn from within, and developed into practical behaviours that people engage with and live by, they become strong and self-policing tools. But what happens when a workforce changes so much that current values seem archaic?

That is a real risk emerging from the shifts we are seeing. Distilling common values has never been an easy task, but the issue – and its importance – are now even more acute. Different generations sharing the same workplace may believe and feel contrasting things about their company. They may have very different perceptions of what values are or should be, and respond to them in different ways. The upshot is that a set of values that was articulated, say, ten years ago may no longer be fit for purpose. It may have little meaning to people that make up an increasing proportion of the workforce (particularly if those people have been recruited on technical prowess or potential alone). And so those values become an irrelevance to some, or even a trigger for clashes with other employees, rather than the powerful and unifying force they could and should be.

Organisations have to recognise and respond to this risk. The simplest way of doing so is to review the current values, and their associated behaviours, by gaining input from colleagues across the demographic spectrum. Ask them what they think and feel about the company. How they would articulate the beliefs that guide the way it does business. What resonates with them and what seems unrealistic.

Involve employees in a review; it’s good practice from time-to-time in any event, but it is particularly important now.  It could help renew and revitalise the role that values play for a changing workforce, rather than leaving them to become a spark for cultural conflict.