Don't panic, don't panic!

I'm a bit worried.

Apparently there's a war being waged that I missed.  Ok, maybe the recent coverage of the US elections and the Ross/Brand dirty phone calls distracted me.

But it seems that HR have been battling with unseen evil forces to snatch control of Internal Comms and despatches from the front line suggest that the tide is turning in their favour.

This great news comes to us courtesy of Ian Buckingham and his blog on The Change Board

I suggest you take time to read it (well at least half way down).

His point is that HR is wresting control of IC from other less worthy people.  The problem is that IC seems to be run by a bunch of unprofessional hooligans who don't know better than to write everything down.

Where has this man been living?  Maybe he's been hanging out with John McCain on the Iraq-Pakistan border.  But his picture of IC professionals is completely alien to me.

And apparently "face to face communication via line managers is proven, time and again, to be the most effective communication"- which could go down in the 'attacking Panzers with cavalry' book of outdated tactics...

Of course face to face is valuable, but anyone with any experience knows three facts:

1) It isn't proven to be very much

2) It is only effective when it works - which isn't often

3) ...and it only applies to subjects in which the manager is expected to be the expert - for other issues employees are happy to hear from other people (which might be by paper).

Ian rambles on a bit more and (to my embarassment) repeats a few of my personal prejudices about big bang engagement programmes - but with him leading us into battle internal communicators should be going AWOL as fast as they can.

Liam

Comments

[Ian Buckingham]

A witty post big man but get your facts right eh?

I don't see how you've managed to extract these conclusions from that particular Change Board blog. I was simply pointing out the increasing interest HR generally is taking in Internal Comms and how this is a sign of its growing importance.

Melcrum (and others), regularly publish stats to reflect this change in emphasis and as you know, there are also a range of ways to prove the impacts of IC which anyone in an IC role in the current climate should be actively pursuing.

As anyone who has read Brand Engagement will know, I passionately believe in independent professional accreditation for IC and am one of the chief flag wavers for the cause. And if you really do believe that face to face communication is an outmoded tactic - try telling that to the thousands of folk out there who are desperately trying to connect with their line managers during these dark days and are fed a diet of emails, glossy paper, videos and website updates instead.
I don't mind a good debate but your insights are lost here. Post your comments on the Change Board site and let's get cracking!

[Liam Fitzpatrick]

Ok, ok so I went over the top and the link seems to point to a more recent posting than the one that made me see red.

But I stand by two things:

1) Line managers are NOT the best channel of internal communications. They are very important, but any analysis that implies that they are number 1 for every occasion is flawed.

Having sat through endless meetings when line managers had all sorts of crap dumped on them to communicate, you'll have to forgive my limited patience with this old saw.

I don't want to reproduce all the excellent stuff said on this subject by Shel Holtz, Angela Sinickas and TJ Larkin - the essential point is that the world is more subtle than just 'line managers are best'.

2) I don't believe that there is any change whatsoever in the who runs IC evidence. The data to which you refer to reflects more the active database of the publisher concerned and how many people respond to a survey monkey request - it's not really that reliable.

In the last 15 years I have yet to meet an HRD who isn't concerned about IC and ready to step up when there is a shortfall - maybe I'm getting old but there isn't a trend and I have yet to see any evidence of it.

From the looks of things we probably agree on quite a lot and I'm certainly open to allegations about hot air pontification. So apology deserved for smart arse comments but...

Liam

[Ian Buckingham]

No problem! We do agree on an awful lot and I have no problem with a passionate debate. The Change Board column is deliberately provocative to try and lure people from the fence of idifference! I guess it worked. It's good to see the energy you put into this blog.
I'll come back to you on the line manager point when I get the chance as well as the survey/data issue. I've been doing some work with the former Interbrand Brand Evaluation guys. It may interest you Liam.
Keep pontificating.....

Ian