Communicate what employees need to know

The always excellent Liam Fitzpatrick has an insightful post on his blog today about the merits of communicating strategy to employees. This comment really hit the nail on the head:

So my suggestion for communicating strategy? Stop it and get on with introducing the boss to their people and concentrate on explaining what people have to do next week.

Of course you have to paint a vision and describe the journey. But I think you'll get there a lot faster if you work on the authentic human components... and a bit less on the carefully argued powerpoints.

Liam's absolutely right. In many companies too much of what is communicated is irrelevant to many employees. The problem is too few organisations ensure the information they share is put in a local context to make it meaningful for the people receiving the messages.

Business communicators are familiar with this problem. To start correcting it, communicators should be ensuring messages are presented to employees in the form of a narrative that explains the employees' role and the role of their immediate team mates in the success of the business. But we have to go beyond that and also need to reduce the volume of dry and uninspiring information cascade.

There will always be a need to cascade some information. But wherever possible we should be promoting dialogue, real face to face discussion between real people. We should personalise the delivery of messages and seek a response. It is important to communicate in such a manner because it ensures communication is two-way. It also serves to help embed the line manager as a trusted source of information for his team, while allowing employees' ideas and concerns to be raised at decision making level.

London Evening Standard communication failure?

Today's edition of The Times reports that the London Evening Standard will soon become a free newspaper. The story contains quotes from Alexander Lebedev, the majority owner and chairman of Evening Standard Ltd, and the paper's editor, Geordie Greig. The article is quite detailed in its coverage of the plan and the reasons for it.

However, has the Standard let down its employees by failing to tell them this news before sharing it with other media outlets? This comment below the story suggests at least some of the employees have not been told about this significant change...

Middle managers are internal communication weak link?

That's the finding of a national survey in the US reported on Reuters. And it's one that will be familiar to many internal communicators who see messages through the line frequently break down at the line manager level.

According to the national telephone survey of 420 employed adults with supervisors:

• Only half of America's employees (50%) agree that their supervisors give them the information they need to do their job well;
• And even fewer employees - four in 10 - feel their supervisor keeps them informed about what's going on in the organization (42%);
• Finally, only 41% of employees feel their supervisor takes action on the ideas and concerns of his or her employees.

Chicago-based internal communications agency dg&a commissioned the survey. The agency's founder and president, David Grossman, added another finding that internal communicators will recognise all too well:

"Supervisors are the preferred and most trusted information source inside organizations today - yet they're clearly not getting the information and training they need for those they supervise."

Grossman goes on to remind people, quite rightly, that 'mid-level managers who can engage and motivate their staff can be a company's strongest means of accelerating success'. After that the piece then turns into a sales pitch for dg&a's "Ultimate Leader Tools".

The piece does however focus attention on what remains a real challenge for many businesses. How do you turn trusted and visible sources of information into people who communicate clearly with their teams?

When speaking with line managers about the need for them to have solid two-way discussions with their teams, one frequently cited hindrance is time. Line managers always say they have a lot to do and too little time in which to do it. This is where the soft skills of the internal communicator should be employed, because it is possible to influence line managers - and the senior managers above them - to put more a greater priority on sharing relevant information with teams and listening to what the teams have to say. After all, communicating with colleagues and employees is too important to business performance to be pushed down a list of priorities.

Yes, there will always be the manager who doesn't have the inclination to communicate properly with their team, but that is a performance management issue for their own line manager to address. In fixing the weak link that has been identified by the survey, communicators already have the solution to hand in the form of our soft skill set. There is no need to accept middle or line managers being a perceived communication weak link.

Changing the behaviours and thinking in a business will likely require the use of soft skills such as negotiation and motivation. But this survey and many others like it provide us with the all-important evidence required to influence management into giving communication a much greater emphasis. As communicators it's just another example of the value we add to an organisation.

Internal Communications - what on earth?

My name is Tony and I'm an internal communicator.  There, I've admitted it to myself and to you, dear reader.  Cue warm applause, murmurs of approval, pats on the back and perhaps a personal sense of relief.  After all, identifying your specialism is half the battle, isn't it?  The other half as I see it is defining exactly what an internal communicator is and explaining why the job is important.

For despite the preponderance and visibility of internal communications teams in business around the globe, many people still don't have much idea of what internal comms functions do.  For a field of endeavour that, among other things, does so much in explaining the vision, strategy, challenges, successes (and disappointments) of a business, internal comms has been surprisingly poor at defining itself to the audiences it engages with.  Perhaps it is due to the quiet modesty exhibited by most internal comms professionals... but I doubt it.

So it was great to learn that a team of internal communications experts - Rachel Allen, Abi Signorelli, David Ferrabee, Liam FitzPatrick, Wedge and Lee Smith - took the bull by the horns and formed a comms 'flash mob' to set about correcting that state of affairs.  They have published an up to date page on Wikipedia which everyone can read here.  It explains what internal communications is and what internal communicators do.  The page remains work in progress and other communicators have joined in, helping to populate it with additional useful information.

Thanks to the efforts of all those contributors, the process of demystifying internal communications has taken an overdue step forward - and I feel like my specialism has more of an identity.  Internal communications will remain a niche business area, but the people who read that Wikipedia page will now be able to see just how broad the expertise in a comms function really is and recognise the value internal comms expertise can add to a business.  Yes, that's right, value.

Far from being a cost centre that derives no revenue for the business, an internal communications function is actually a value centre that undertakes activity which adds to the bottom line.

With the recession biting deep in many sectors of the UK economy, businesses with internal comms functions are learning just how valuable they can be in facilitating engagement between management and their teams.  I will wager that businesses that use internal communication professionals to share management's direction and objectives, and explain what is expected of their teams, are the ones that will come out of the recession in better shape for their people having clearly understood and delivered what was required.

That's an important part of what internal communicators do.  The work can be challenging and there can be obstacles to overcome.  But the buzz you can get when you see a business succeed because you have helped management and people to understand each other and work together... it can be highly addictive.  So when I say 'my name is Tony and I'm an internal communicator', I don't feel embarrassment or shame, I can feel a sense of pride. By the way, welcome to my blog!