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 

It’s Wright for Sweet Comms and employee engagement

Sweet Comms, the employee engagement consultancy, is delighted to announce a partnership with Nick Wright, formerly Director of Communications at BDO and leader of PR Week’s current in-house team of the year.

The move reunites Nick with Paul Sweetman, former director and head of the employee engagement team at Fishburn Hedges, who set up Sweet Comms in Spring 2014. Nick originally recruited Paul to Fishburn Hedges in 2001 and the pair worked closely together for nearly a decade. Their joint experience includes communication and engagement projects for organisations as diverse as Barclays, BT, National Express, Nestlé, the NHS and the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (working with David MacLeod and Nita Clarke on best practice in employee engagement).

“I am delighted to be teaming up with Nick again”, said Paul. “We’ll be picking up where we left off and bringing clients our blend of strategic counsel and hands-on support to help them connect and communicate with their people. We’ve got big plans to help more clients get more from employee engagement than ever before.”

Sweet Comms has built a broad client base in its first year, covering many different sectors and disciplines. With Nick on board, the team will be expanding its reach and helping more clients engage employees with strategy, vision, change and brand values (among other areas). 

“Securing real employee engagement remains a significant challenge for many organisations.” said Nick. “Paul and I want to help clients, whatever their situation or circumstances, make the most of it and improve their organisations. We have complementary skills and experience, a great working relationship and a belief in clear, practical and no-nonsense advice and support. I can’t wait to get started.”

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. 

Why are we still speaking about 'soft skills'?

The campaign launched last week to promote ‘soft skills’ in the workplace is a laudable initiative. But it’s disappointing that we seem to need it. 

We all know, intuitively, how important such attributes are within teams. If we’re lucky, we’ve been part of groups with respect, integrity, warmth and openness at their core. We’ve experienced – and aided – the communication and collaboration evolving from this blend. We’ve been more engaged, committed and productive as individuals and teams as a result.

On the flip-side, we may have experienced teams where a lack of ‘soft skills’ led to friction, distrust and even open hostility. The impact can be destructive for everyone (and the organisation) involved.

We can all see the importance. So why do we need a campaign to explore and promote such skills? Why aren’t they already valued and cherished?

Well, there are no doubt several factors at play. For a start, the collective name has never been helpful. ‘Soft skills’ suggests these attributes and behaviours are all a bit flaky, a bit touchy-feely, rather than core and crucial aspects of day-to-day business. I think anyone who still holds this view should contact someone who has been involved in the type of destructive environment outlined above to discuss.

A second is that it’s difficult to quantify the precise and direct impact of such skills on performance. And this flies in the face of the apparently unquenchable thirst for measurement within business. If we can’t measure, we can’t prove value. And to circle back to nomenclature, ‘soft skills’ pale in comparison with ‘hard data’.

The new campaign has sought to address these issues head-on by releasing research saying ‘soft skills’ are worth £88 billion to the UK economy (a value that is rising every year). They are seeking to quantify the effect that such skills have on organisations and, by extension, the economy as a while. It will be interesting to see if the campaign seeks to maintain this emphasis on quantification moving forward.

In my view, there must be a balance. We do need to demonstrate impact – of course we do – and we need more rigour than perhaps we have had in the past. My own field of employee engagement is a good example; the range of metrics now being employed is helping practitioners both to identify strengths and weaknesses in methodologies and to make the case for further investment. But in engagement, as with ‘soft skills’ more widely, we must be wary of trying to force out statistics that don’t make sense. It’s not always possible to describe the precise effect of human interaction (or the skills that inform this) on performance in terms of numbers or percentage points. Some degree of assessment and reasoned interpretation will always be required.  And the fact that we can’t create a numerical causal link doesn’t mean ‘soft skills’ don’t have a major impact. 

So I hope the campaign goes well and that as many of us as possible contribute to its consultation. I hope it identifies new ways of nurturing such skills and that, through the ideas it uncovers, the whole area attracts greater and more consistent acclaim. I just believe metrics should be an element of the discussion, not the substance.

Santa, can you help employee engagement?

Dear Santa,

My kids have been crafting their Christmas lists for weeks so I thought I’d send you mine too. It’s just a handful of things I’d love to change about the profession I’m part of. Can you help us achieve the following?

1.     Stop trying to define what we do – unless your elves can create a universally-accepted explanation, in which case please feel free to drop it down the chimney. Currently, the time we spend discussing what we do hinders us from getting on and doing it.

2.     Focus increasingly on business need – we’re getting better at this, but we must ensure everything we plan and do is rooted in – not just related to – business goals. We’ve got to articulate a clear, strong and measurable link at all times.

3.     We end talk of ‘adding value’ – I hate the phrase. It may be a personal thing, but I can’t believe people will be clamouring to keep it. Let’s just show how we plan to make a difference and get on with doing it.

4.     We accept surveys for what they are – they have a role: they’re not perfect, but let’s recognise that, take what we need from them and move on. 

5.      We give managers more attention – we know managers need more support to build communication skills and confidence. We’ve talked about it a lot, but not done enough about it. Let’s work with colleagues in areas like HR to make this a priority in 2015.

6.     We tame technology – new tools and platforms offer us major opportunities to improve the way we engage with employees, but we’re in danger of being dazzled by them. Let’s be clear on the engagement needs in our different organisations and find the right tool(s) to meet them (rather than approaching things the other way round).

7.     We get better at measurement – yes, I know I asked for this last year, but we need to go even further in the next twelve months. We need to be clearer, more consistent and more sophisticated in the way we evaluate progress, identify issues and demonstrate the difference we deliver.  

I could go on, but you’re a busy man (and having seen what my kids have written, I doubt you’ll have time to consider the rest of us). Any help with these areas would really benefit me, my colleagues and the organisations we work in or with. And I won’t have to hassle the Easter Bunny in a few months’ time.

Thanks in advance

Paul

Six steps to engaging managers

One of my regular topics in recent months has been the way in which we engage and equip our managers to communicate with people in their teams. We know (and have known for years) that we don’t prepare them as well as we could, yet there still seems little consensus on how to improve this. So I‘d like to offer some suggestions on steps that any organisation can take to make progress.

1.      Define what you need – different organisations have different priorities. Some need to work on skills for sharing information, whilst others need to spend more time on how to build dialogue. Most need a focus on both areas to some degree, addressing the points and issues most pertinent to them. So don’t just pick an off-the-shelf development package for managers and hope it will fit: identify the key issues for your organisation, and the people with in it, before sourcing or designing a solution.  

2.      Identify people (and potential) – once you have articulated what you need, consider whom you might need it from: not only current managers, but also those with the potential to progress. The earlier you can identify and start to prepare these people, the more you can help them evolve into the type of managers you need.  

3.      Target employee ‘touchpoints’ – identify the various ways in which you currently connect (or could connect) with the people you have identified. Consider how you can use these touchpoints to convey and reinforce key messages about the behaviours you want to see. Don’t rely on training alone: seek and harness all the other channels and tools you have available.  

4.      Develop your training – training always plays an important part, but don’t rely on generic materials or exercises: they will seem a world away from day-to-day experience for your people. Root your training in familiar scenarios, with specific examples relevant to your organisation’s operations and ways of working. You are far more likely to gain the traction and inspire the behaviour change you need if participants don’t have to work to grasp the relevance.  

5.      Engage managers as people – throughout this process, help your people understand what’s in it for them: not just as company managers, but also as individuals. Help them see how more effective communication could aid their own enjoyment of, and well-being at, work. And give them the same support you would for anyone involved in change: the chance to ask questions, discuss issues and raise concerns. Don’t just give them materials or a training session and expect them to immediately deliver.

6.      Hard-wire behaviours – finally, make sure desired behaviours are reflected in objective-setting, recognition and performance management processes.

 

These are just a handful of steps to help any organisation engage and equip current and prospective managers with skills that they and the organisation will need. 

What does Sir Bob Geldof know about employee engagement?

One of the highlights of Microsoft’s ‘Future Decoded’ event this week was a presentation from Sir Bob Geldof.

He was discussing the education of future generations. And he suggested that we are, as a society, way behind where we need to be: the world has changed around us, but we are still living and teaching in the 20^th century. The reason, he believes, is that we are still grappling with the implications of a tidal wave of technological change. We have not been able to answer a fundamental question:

What does it mean when we are all connected to each other, all of the time?

It was a regular refrain during his talk. What does this ability to connect, the advent of ‘always on’ systems and devices, mean for the way we live and interact with each other? How is it re-shaping the nature of our conversations and relationships? And how should we change the way we prepare young people for society in response?

This fundamental question has resonance in the workplace too.

What does it mean when we are all connected to each other, all of the time?

Within our organisations, we’re introducing an increasing array of tools and mechanisms that ensure we are connected to our companies and to each other, any time, any place. In this digital workplace, we’re always seeking more methods for unlocking greater connectivity, more information sharing and increasing collaboration.

There are opportunities. But there are also implications. Do we always think these through?

Do we have a clear sight of how such tools are going to fit within – or help to reshape – the way we work? Are we effectively preparing our current employees (as well as new recruits) to make use of them? Are we engaging people on cultural usage as well as technical requirements? Are we regularly sharing and celebrating success stories as we see them? Are we doing enough to identify and address emerging issues?

If we can’t answer in the affirmative, I’d suggest we haven’t really grasped what these tools mean (or may mean) for the way we work and for the people we work with. We’re in danger of ushering in a new technological framework that is divorced from, rather than resonant with, corporate culture (even if the plan is to catalyse change in that culture).  

I sound this only as a note of caution. Technology is giving us many, many opportunities to enhance the way we work and engage with each other. But there are risks we need to manage, and we should think about Sir Bob’s fundamental question as we plan the road ahead.