The relationship between Communications and HR is complicated. Sometimes it’s blissful, at other times, combative. Perhaps most common is the passive-aggressive “frenemy” relationship where each function feeds off of the other’s struggles and misfortunes. “Well, if you had just asked us, you wouldn’t be in that position now would you?” the one head chides the other. Even though Comms and HR often sit near one another and care about a lot of the same outcomes, they certainly don’t always get along. That’s a problem—especially in today’s agile enterprises. In CEC’s latest meeting with Gurus of Communications, we learned that—when it comes to leading the agile enterprise—our gurus fell into two camps. The first camp, we’ll call them, “Camp Comms,” believes that Communications has the potential to lead the organizations’ efforts to be more agile. Camp Comms pointed to three reasons for Communications’ leadership.

1. Communications is already seen by executives as the owner of change. For example, the mission of one function starts with, “As agents of change, we shape the beliefs…”
2. HR is ill-equipped to own this emerging responsibility. While HR has proven itself adept at handling succession and benefits challenges, the function hasn’t dealt with large-scale change from a multi-stakeholder perspective. Managing stakeholders is Communications’ bread and butter.
3. “Building an agile organization” is no small task, and it lays out a huge chunk of real estate that no one currently owns, so why shouldn’t Communications be the one to take up this mantle? Communication is the lifeblood of agile enterprises. The function has an unprecendented opportunity to redefine itself and leave a lasting impact on the organization.

These are fighting words, Heads of HR. What’s your rebuttal? Read More »

Organizations operate in an increasingly uncertain environment.  With this often chaotic backdrop, Communications can play a powerful role in helping employees to positively react to changes and to ensure they contribute to company growth amid volatility.

Choosing the right communication style can have significant impact on employees’ ability to understand changes and adapt to them promptly.  The results of our recent survey of 2,000 employees  at large companies show that employees found an interactive (two-way sharing) communication style significantly more valuable in helping them adapt, compared to a directive, top-down (command and control) approach.

So, what’s your typical approach to communciating change?  An announcement from leadership, detailing the context and providing as much directive guidance as possible?

Looking at how employees perceive the value of such major announcements about change (usually coming from Communications), only 12.5% answered that they found a very directive, top-down communication style valuable in helping them adapt to change.  Compare that to the 87.5% of employees who prefer a highly or at least somewhat interactive communication style.  Which percentage would you rather be reaching with your corporate messaging?  (If you picked the second group, GOOD!) Read More »

By Kirsten Robinson

What happens when someone zones out of a conversation? Their nods of agreement go on auto-pilot. Their eyes glaze over. Their mind wanders. Why? Because they’re not engaged in the discussion. They’re being talked to, not with. It’s the opposite effect your team wants to have on your audience.

Your messages should not solely inform—they should trigger a response. These rules of engagement don’t just apply to verbal communications. Writing is even more difficult. Messages can be well-written, but if they don’t engage, stakeholders will zone out. It’s not enough to have the mechanics of language down pat, or even just to craft a message on a topic that stakeholders care about. Engaging people so they’ll respond requires taking a genuinely stakeholder-centric stance.

As you’re mapping out a new message, ask yourself, How can I make my communication more…

• Relevant. What role do your stakeholders play in the subject matter? Don’t make your information the meat of the message and then only touch upon audience wants and needs in the intro and closing. Make it clear that connecting with them—and not just regurgitating company info—is your primary concern. See how a zone-out-worthy message was reframed into something engaging.
• Unique. Is your subject matter one-of-a-kind? Or have your stakeholders already read similar content? If they’ve seen it once, twice, or multiple times, people won’t be interested in reading it again. Create a new angle that inspires a different line of thought. Research shows that people are more likely to share content that is surprising.
• Memorable. People read hundreds of messages every day. Generic writing will be forgotten, but memorable messages—whether by humor, surprising facts, or storytelling—will still be talked about down the road. Ford effectively uses storytelling by sourcing stories from the very stakeholders they want to engage. Read More »

As a slight diversion from my usual blogging about corporate social responsibility, I thought this week I would combine a topic of personal interest (social media) with an industry I know well from my pre-CEC life (financial services), and write about what has become a hot topic in banking these days. We at the CEC blogged about social media in financial services a few months ago, and the topic is high on the agenda for retail banks – our sister program, the Council on Financial Competition is coming out with a piece, The Current Financial Services Social Media Landscape later this month.

If you are the head of Communications for an FS company, you’re probably trying to figure out how to engage customers through social media outlets, without losing control of your messaging and hurting your brand. Where to begin? How to convince business colleagues to do it? How to appease the fears of your legal team? I wanted to share one simple and fun example from banking that I came across some time ago, from Co-operative bank in the United Kingdom.

Read More »

We all know that Comms and HR folks have a lot in common (e.g., effective HR is often reliant upon strong communication). How far do you sit from your HR counterpart – 10m across the office? 20m? Separated by one or two stops in the elevator / lift?

Although they may sit near us, we probably don’t talk as much as we should.  With that in mind, I thought it would be valuable to take a look at the joint objectives that we share with our partners in HR.  Each quarter, our sister program, CLC Human Resources announces the latest trends from the HR world.  As we just begin to step forth from the recession, it’s perhaps unsurprising that the latest insights (from Q4 2010) made for some pretty depressing reading.  I’ve pulled out some of the key HR challenges facing businesses below:

• Decline in Engagement / Increased Retention Risk: As the job market begins to pick up, disengaged employees who had been ‘sitting tight’ have begun to look for new pastures.  Levels of intent to stay have fallen every quarter since Q4-2009 (from 26% – 22%). Crucially, line managers are identified as key to influencing engagement, and to customizing retention strategies to manage turnover risk…
• Performance Management & Productivity: Managers’ effectiveness at stewarding the performance of their employees continues to decline.  While productivity increased slightly in Q3, the overall downward trend in productivity across the year indicates that managers are struggling to provide effective performance feedback (18% decline in manager effectiveness), and to articulate clear objectives to their direct reports (7% decline in manager effectiveness)… Read More »

Our members have been talking a lot about the challenge of helping their enterprises adapt to change, even building a culture that supports adaptation.  And it’s no wonder: 67% of chief strategy officers report that “becoming more adaptive” is a top priority in their organization.  “Change fatigue” is a common complaint.

This has prompted us at the CEC to study what drives performance in a changing environment and what Communications can do to help.  As part of our principal research initiative for 2011, we surveyed nearly 2000 employees (American and European) of large enterprises regarding their performance, engagement, and a variety of attitudes and behaviors, alongside control variables like experience.  Not surprisingly, 79% indicated that they had recently experienced one or more changes in their job.

Next, we looked at what influenced the performance of these employees.  Consistent with previous research on the subject, we found, for example, that “Effort” – working hard, putting in extra energy when needed – is a significant driver of performance.  More interesting, we found that “Adaptivity” – trying new approaches to one’s work, seeking and sharing best practices – is an even more significant driver of performance.  Nearly FOUR TIMES more significant!  And the importance of Adaptivity relative to Effort increases with the amount of change experienced in the organization. Read More »

By Kirsten Robinson

Did you know?

CEC research found that executives think articulating strategic objectives internally is twice as important as other leading business goals—including securing key stakeholder buy-in and coordinating strategy messages. And, the most important means for communicating these objectives isn’t through electronic forms or through cascaded memos, but through dialogue. Employees feel personally connected to the company when they receive information through direct, face-to-face conversations with their manager. What begins as a successful one-on-one dialogue ripples out and results in thriving business.

The problem is that while company success depends on effective communications, most managers aren’t very good at it. There can be many reasons—competing priorities or lack of self awareness. Whatever the case, poor dialogue skills are detrimental to achieving good business results; it sets back schedules, it weakens relationships, and it decreases employee motivation. We’ve also been hearing from members who are facing  pushback from managers who lack the drive to learn advanced dialogue skills or just assume that communication is someone else’s job.

But line managers are the preferred source of communication—and by way of ripple effect, they can make or break business results. So, how can your Communications team help managers become better communicators? We’ve created an online training tool, Investing Employees in Business Results Through Dialogue, to help managers improve their communications skills and gain employee buy-in. The training module helps managers to: Read More »

By Rebecca Canan

If you’ve been in Communications for 5-10 years, you likely realize that the things that made you successful back then are no longer as relevant today. For example:

Relationships with heavy-hitter journalists who cover your industry?

Back then = Critical.

Today = Arguably still handy, but more important to understand how influence works in a highly networked, messy media world.

Ensuring your CEO delivers smooth and effective speeches?

Back then = A big value-add (especially according to your boss)

Today = Your CEO probably still likes this; however, to add value to your organization at-large, your ability to enable employees and other stakeholders to be communicative, active supporters of your company is more important.

Writing comprehensive and punchy press releases?

Back then = Well, writing was the bread-and-butter of your role.

Today = Writing is still important; that said, the writing style has changed — the emphasis is now on creating content that gets shared; content that isn’t necessarily perfect and complete, but that is highly relevant and timely.

In other words, you’ve got skiiiillls…they’re multiplyin (to the tune of Grease’s “You’re the One that I Want“). Below are some early ideas we have on how communicators’ skill sets should evolve and take on new variations. What are we missing?  How have you changed your competency frameworks? Read More »

When you don’t have anything nice to say, should you say anything at all? What if you don’t want to draw attention to something that will just disappoint people? Can we keep our mouths shut?

We live in a world that expects open communications. This means that as communicators, we constantly face the tough balancing act of: communicating the truth, communicating what is most relevant to stakeholders, AND knowing when to communicate at all.

For example: How often do the following words come into a consumer’s mind when they are shopping in a retail store?

Floods. Labor markets. Paksitan. China. Supply chains.

Very rarely. These are not typical thoughts in a shopper’s mind when they are searching for a good deal on the latest trendy sweater, cute T, or pair of athletic socks. But for a large number of retailers, the 15-year high in the price of cotton due to abnormal floods and droughts in Asia is no longer a bearable dent in their supply chain costs. As prices for 2011 are set, many retailers are preparing for shoppers who will see a small to mid-sized price increase in clothing. In speaking with communicators facing this situation we are hearing valid questions like, “Is this something they need to know?” or “Would we be better off if we don’t draw attention to the situation?” Read More »