Semantics

I’ve found myself compelled to contribute to a few online discussions recently, both I hate to admit, sparked off by nothing more that my own intolerance. One here and another here.

You see I have this thing about arguments seemingly based on nothing but semantics. It winds me up a treat when people start arguing about the meaning of words and hold up long lists of alternative dictionary definitions as reasons why current terminology needs to be re-defined.

My own industry is full of it. Many of my peers* seem determined to find alternative labels and terminology that more accurately reflect exactly what we mean by Internal Communications and Employee Engagement. In one recent discussion on the Employee Engagement Network, ‘syntropy’ was held up as the contributor’s ‘terminology for the antithesis’ of the ‘malpractice’ of managers and consultants who disengage employees in ‘the Entropic Enterprise’. Make of that what you will. I gave up trying to work out how that would help anyone understand what a disengaged employee looks like after getting bogged down in medical glossaries in search of a spot of clarity.

An article I came across in an in-flight magazine the other day may help to illustrate what I’m somewhat inelegantly trying to say here. The article, which explored the evolution of music, began by defining the word ‘music’ as “an art form with the medium of sound based around vibrations”.

Now what bloody use is that to anyone? Music is music. We all know what it is. We all have our own opinions on what constitutes good and bad music. But it’s still music.

I have to confess I couldn’t be bothered to read the rest of the article. The attempt to define ‘music’ was too big a turn off to draw me any further into the story. I was disengaged.

*Maybe not quite peers. Consultants seem more prone to this activity than in-house practitioners, who I consider to be my true peers.

A personal perspective on Internal Communications

Hands up those who think that the primary role of Internal Communications is to craft and deliver corporate messages?

I’d like to think any communications professionals reading this have kept their hands firmly pointing to the floor. I’m sure I’m right on this. I’m just as sure however that a significant proportion of senior executives across the land are tempted to raise their hands if they haven’t already thrust them up towards the heavens.

I believe that the primary role of Internal Communications is to create or at least contribute to a climate where people are increasingly receptive to receiving those corporate messages in the first place.

Communication does not take place until the intended recipient receives and accepts the message. You can shout as loud and as often as you like, but if no one is listening you are not communicating.

Every so often I come across people who believe that if you craft an email containing all of the relevant points you wish to get across, once you have hit the send button you can put a tick in the ‘communication done’ box. As George Bernard Shaw famously once said “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” Yep – I buy that.

A big part of my job is to educate and support those around me who believe they have communicated when they haven’t – as well as to undertake all manner of activities to increase the likelihood that when a corporate message is sent out there is a natural demand from the recipient to accept delivery. I don’t want to see people hiding behind the curtain when the postman knocks on the door.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. The horse will only drink if it is thirsty. The job of Internal Communications is to create thirst.

This is where things get a touch more complicated. Every organisation is different. There is no one size fits all approach that will work from one company to the next. The sort of things I mean will usually involve varying degrees of getting down and dirty, lots more listening, creating more opportunities for conversation, finding the right balance between push and pull, and equal measures of transparency, openness, humility, honesty, integrity and fun.

However, there is one thing that can be applied to every enterprise regardless of size, age and location; and that is the need to enlist the unequivocal support of your line management community. I sit firmly in the Larkin & Larkin camp.

No amount of leadership summits, executive workshops, CEO breakfasts, engagement surveys, podcasts, blogs, Twittering, Yammering or firing out all-staff emails can make up for a tuned out line manager who does not regularly engage with his or her team on the important corporate issues of the day.

A word in your Shell-like

The Times today carries a story of the names and telephone numbers of up to 170,000 of Shell employees and contractors being sent by email to human rights groups and environmental activists, supposedly by a group of disaffected staff who were pressing for changes within the company.

I’d say the truth around this story has yet to be established, however regardless of whether this represents, as reported, the actions of a group of disaffected staff seeking change (which feels very unlikely!), or the actions of a single rogue ex-employee it will probably be a while before we know.

The story interests me primarily because it is a timely reminder to those who argue that social media should not be allowed in the workplace because of the increased risk of intentional or accidental reputational damage.  The same arguments were widely articulated in the early days of email – and who could seriously suggest these days that email has no place in business and commerce?

This is not a technology issue. Today’s story illustrates how the means of spraying information around the globe in minutes has been with us for donkey’s years. Social media technologies may speed up the spray from minutes to seconds, but this makes no real difference to the outcome. And security measures merely provide a way of mopping up after the damage has been done. They will never prevent such occurrences from taking place.

No – this has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with human behaviour. Last Friday’s Twitter storm involving Vodafone UK was very interesting. The storm turned very quickly into a storm in a tea cup and went on to illustrate to me the enormous potential that social media has in enhancing and protecting corporate reputations.

Had the employee sent his homophobic comments in an email to 8,000 people the story would have gone viral over a period of days and weeks and it would have attracted far more mainstream press coverage. Because this took place on Twitter the whole world knew about it in minutes – but they got over it in hours.

In my opinion Vodafone handled the incident magnificently. They could have gone quiet and said nothing (the route favoured by far too many corporate media relations departments) or maybe spun the story by blaming hackers or technology failure.

But no – they swiftly identified the issue as one of human behaviour and apologised openly and elegantly and as a result the story no longer has legs. In my opinion Vodafone controlled the incident beautifully by demonstrating agility, openness and a touch of humility.

I think there are lessons for us all in there somewhere.

Bad manners or the acceptable face of multi tasking?

Twenty seconds into my train journey to London this morning I broke out into a cold sweat. I realised I had left my iPhone and my Blackberry at home. Ironically I was on route to Melcrum’s Social Media conference. What a day to be without the means to communicate!

I managed to find the venue despite having no access to Google maps, which was a relief. It didn’t take long before I found myself glancing enviously around the packed room at my peers as some brandished their mobiles quite brazenly and others glanced furtively between their legs where they engaged with the outside world with a little more discretion.

Two things struck me. First, it cost a fair few quid to be in the room. £625 to be precise. I’m guessing that most delegates were there by virtue of company money. Surely they owed it to their paymaster to pay a bit more attention to the distinguished speakers? 

Secondly, how did the speakers feel about giving it their all up on stage to an audience that clearly wasn’t 100% focussed on their efforts? I know how irritated I get when people whip out a Blackberry and begin tap tap tapping during a meeting. Surely it is a simple question of good manners. If someone is presenting to us should we not all afford the presenter the basic courtesy of paying attention?

There is a senior executive at my place who thunders through the office regularly to and from his desk, focussed on nothing other than his Blackberry. I can’t help feeling he is missing a trick. His personal equity would increase significantly if he trousered his mobile, raised his eyes and engaged with the people around him. 

Am I clinging on to old world values here? Could it be that etiquette has moved on? Are the new forms of communication changing acceptable norms? I don’t know the answer yet – although interestingly Wharton management professor Sigal Barsade suggests they probably are.

Perhaps it is a question of my inability to multi task? Maybe it is possible to write an email, an SMS message or Tweet whilst listening intently to someone else speaking to you. I had to marvel at the manual dexterity and multi tasking skills of a colleague of mine the other day who was tapping away on his Blackberry with one hand while his other hand was ensuring Percy was properly pointing at the porcelain….

Cut the crap

There was a great question posed on Melcrum’s Communicators Network on Linkedin recently: “Can you describe your business or expertise in 10 words or less?”

To date there have been over 44 responses – and at the risk of causing offence to some of my peers, I have to say that by the time I got to the end of the list I was left with a lingering sensation of sadness.

The best of the bunch come from in-house practitioners. My two favourites were the short and sweet; “Insurance” from the comms manager from AXA and the stunningly accurate and descriptive “Bringing freedom and independence to blind and partially sighted people” from the intranet manager at Guide Dogs for the Blind.

Now, compare these to the contributions some of the specialist communications agencies and consultants:

  • Unleashing the power of involvement in live communication
  • Helping businesses become what they want to be!
  • A snail crawling along the edge of a razor blade
  • Bringing out their best by being your best
  • Changing People Inside
  • Making Monday the best day of the week
  • Bringing together HR and marketing to keep your business authentic
  • Helping organizations engage employees in conversations for possibility
  • Creating maximum employee engagement through non-equity employee ownership
  • Making change management look like a game of football

In fairness, take each one in isolation and you could get away with it. Maybe. But read them all on a single page and they begin to look increasingly absurd. I was reminded of the recent advert for Tesco Mobile, which I think is genius.

The list above looks to me like a bit of a showcase on what’s wrong with the Internal Communications Industry and perhaps one of the reasons why we find it difficult sometimes to be heard at Board level.

I wonder if any of the contributors used the online corporate bullshit generator?

Asda’s Green Room

I’d heard great things about Asda’s Green Room, an online portal where Asda staff can get together to find out what’s happening around the company as well as share their own stories, pictures and videos. What excited me most about it was that anyone can join in. The whole shebang is exposed to Asda customers, shareholders, media – anyone with a passing interest in Asda can and is encouraged to take a look around.

Given that I’m hugely interested in what I see as the inevitable convergence of internal and external communications, driven primarily by growth of social media, I had huge expectations when I paid my first visit. First impressions were mint. It looks great and sounds great. So I scratched beneath the surface a little. I have to say, by the time I left I was feeling pretty disappointed.

OK, so it has only been going for about 5 months. Actually 5 months in social media is probably the equivalent in several years in real-time. There are some signs of genuine interaction with ‘colleagues’ (that’s what Asda call their staff) and customers who have commented on the stories posted by the Green Room team. However, many stories have attracted no comments at all.

When you consider that Asda employs over 150,000 people in the UK, 90,000 of whom who are part time (and therefore presumably have a bit more time for social networking) this does not feel like success.

Lifting the bonnet slightly, I then saw that the Green Room’s own Facebook site has only 200 fans and despite almost daily updates, 2 ‘like its’ were the only sign of interaction going back to November 2009. I didn’t see a single comment on any of the wall posts during this time. The Green Room’s Twitter channel only has 51 followers (52 now – hi Steve!).

Please don’t get me wrong. I absolutely love what Asda have done here, it is ground breaking stuff – truly. I’m just a tad disappointed that Asda colleagues do not appear to have embraced the portal with as much enthusiasm as the very capable Green Room Team clearly have.

Watch this space – I intend to find out why.

Participation inequality

So we are using Yammer where I work. I like Yammer a lot. Mainly because the basic functionality is free and therefore gives me the chance to experiment without spending a bean. The technology is fine and it sure beats email as a way of threading conversations across the company and in work groups.

We never officially launched Yammer, and yet around 15% of the company (244 people) have found their way to the site and registered in a matter of months. I was initially disappointed that despite going to the effort of joining the network, most people do not appear to use it. Analysis of the contributions to date reveal that 5% of the users (12 people) are responsible for just under 60% of the content and 50% of the content is generated by just 6 people.

Then I discovered Jakob Nielson’s theory of Participation Inequality.  In short, Nielsen’s theory, otherwise known as the 90-9-1 theory, is that in most online communities, 90% of users are lurkers who never contribute, 9% of users contribute a little, and 1% of users account for almost all of the action.  On this basis, our Yammer figures look quite respectable.

So I took a quick look at Wikipedia, and discovered from their latest figures that that a mere 0.13% of users (85,000 people) are active contributors against 64m unique users. And I took a quick look at Twitter, where recent figures suggest that 5% of users account for 75% of all activity.

I feel much better now! The next step is to try and work out whether the lurkers are deriving any benefit….

Time for a change

Time for a change. Music has always been very important to me. So I thought I’d post a track from one of my all time favourite bands – the mighty Split Enz. This track is 35 years old, and I have been listening to it for that many years!

The lyrics are genius:

You act as though
You were a blind man who’s crying
Crying `bout, all the virgins that are dying
In your habitual dreams
You know, seems you need more sleep
But like a parrot in a flaming tree
I know, it’s pretty hard to see
And I’m beginning to wonder if it’s time for a change

But still you try like a fat boy
Dancing Gershwin’s blues
But you’d rather sit at home and watch the news
And I’m beginning to wonder if it’s time for a change
I’m beginning to wonder if it’s time for a change