The more things change, the more they stay the same

There has been quite a bit of commentary following the publication of IC Index 2023 this month. The Institute of Internal Communication and Ipsos Karian and Box have delivered a comprehensive and rigorous report, which contains real insights - but also some reminders of persistent concerns.

Take trust in CEO communication, for example. Worryingly, the report shows that only 54% of employees trust what their CEO communicates. It’s a concern that has echoed through the years. Many leaders and internal communicators are still seeking to resolve it.

Another example: more than half of employees do not see their organisations listening to and acting on feedback. Again, a long-standing issue, on which the dial does not seem to be moving - despite all the options available. This is more about culture than capability: if organisations aren’t really committed to fostering genuine dialogue, no technology can fix it.

The report also shows that many employees want to hear more from managers, yet one in three of those managers feels ill-equipped to lead conversations. Managers clearly need support - but it is a familiar cry for help. It’s frustrating to see such issues persist, nearly 15 years after the MacLeod Review highlighted ‘engaging managers’ as a crucial enabler of employee engagement. Of course, that Review also identified a strong strategic narrative and employee voice as two other drivers...

There is much in this report for communicators to consider in the context of their own organisation. There are important insights, such as the 15 minutes we have to connect with employees each day. There are also some nuggets that challenge received wisdom (for example, the fact that email remains the preferred method for employees to receive news may put a dent in ‘shiny new toy syndrome’). However, it’s disappointing that so many long-standing issues remain unresolved and to see the impact these have on employees.

Surely, now is the time to take action.

Outing the issue of out-of-hours emails

The BBC has reported on an interesting academic study suggesting that efforts to ban employees from accessing work email out of hours – in an effort to curb burnout – could actually increase anxiety for some.

Who would have thought it: one size does not fit all.

This study does speak to me on a personal level, because I am undoubtedly one of those for whom a blanket ban would cause issues. I also think it’s impractical. In a global economy, many of us need to liaise with people in different time zones, all the time. It’s just not possible, or desirable, to work within some allocated hours for such projects. Squeezing the work required into mandated hours would, as the study suggests, inevitably cause more stress.

That’s not to say I don’t appreciate the spirit of the idea. I can absolutely see the risks of an ‘always on’ environment and can understand why there is a search for potential solutions. But, for me, the answer lies not in mandates from outside an organisation, but in enlightened management within it.

If you work in an organisation – or for a manager – that recognizes the demands of your role, and the peaks and troughs of workload, then you may be able to flex your working pattern accordingly.  To take account of the fact you may be working with colleagues on the other side of the world late at night. To get more of a break from “traditional” working hours elsewhere as a result. That understanding, and that flexibility, helps release the pressure that build up (as long as you deliver!).

The horror stories you hear of people feeling like they always have to be online – on top of their ‘normal’ working hours – emerge from a culture in which expectations are both unhealthy and unrealistic. In such situations, there is no way of releasing the pressure: perhaps a manager insists on you always being ‘present’ and/or imposes rigid working patterns that take no account of the fact you’re essentially working round the clock when others have disconnected. No blanket ban is going to circumvent those cultural issues: the unrealistic expectations will remain, and employees will be expected to keep up through other means. The self-destructive culture will remain in place.

The way to address this issue is, surely, to build rapid and wider understanding about the damage that unrealistic expectations, and rigid working patterns, do to many organisations and the people who work for them. And to showcase alternative ways of working that help keep everyone happy. We have to help organisations, and managers, to have the ‘light bulb moment’ for themselves.

Engaged or 'in here'?

There has been more media discussion this morning on the lingering issue of ‘presenteeism’ and its links – or lack thereof – to productivity.

It is amazing that we are still debating such issues. Commentators have been discussing the need for managers to look upon flexible working more favourably, rather than having to see the whites of someone’s eyes in order to manage them effectively. Haven’t we been having such debates for 20+ years? Why are we still floundering around the issue rather than identifying methods and models that make flexible working an accepted and effective element of the modern workplace?

If some leaders and managers are yet to be convinced, maybe they need to see more overt proof of the impact. So why aren’t the various bodies involved in these debates doing more to identify and share lessons from organisations who have really made flexibility work, for employer and employee? We need less discussion over ‘why’ and more focus on ‘how’ if we are going to move the debate on.  

As one commentator this morning has put it, in a knowledge-based economy, whether someone is physically at their desk is increasingly irrelevant. Nor is engagement location-specific. There is so much employers can do to build effective relationships with their people – and enhance productivity – whether or not those individuals are physically in front of them. We should be focusing on how to make that happen, not whether it should take place.  

Culture starts and ends with each of us

I’ve seen a rush of recent articles and blog posts on elements of ‘cultural transformation’. Model after model on how to mould an organisation’s culture around the way you want things done. Isn’t this the wrong way of looking at things?

No model or process is going to ‘make’ people do things differently, willingly and enthusiastically, in a way that re-shapes the organisation. No employees take an edict from on-high and embrace it to the extent that they love and follow it as their own.

What anyone eager to change the way an organisation works must do is articulate a vision of the future and engage them in the benefits of that change. Don’t lay down, in minute detail, every element you want to re-shape, but engage people in the ‘whats’ and the ‘whys’ and allow them to connect, interpret and change working practices to align. Set the parameters, in other words, and support teams and individuals to respond.

You can’t forcefeed colleagues with culture change. Instead, engage and empower them to take on your goals as their own, and make their own changes to support the vision you’ve outlined. I feel that’s a big difference between ‘transformation efforts’ that become embedded into the organisation and those that simply wither on the vine.